The Home Office has come out with plans to spend our money on an ID system. It reckons it's in the market for building and maintaining a National Identity Register; recording and matching biometrics; registration processes; IT & comms; the actual cards; plus office space, FM, corporate support systems/ services, call centre, ID verification services, accreditation of user organisations, account management and marketing (all subject to the law being passed). If you want to sell such services keep an eye on the hardcore ID web site http://www.identitycards.gov.uk
Monday, August 15, 2005
Home Office ID shopping list
William Heath has the Home Office ID shopping list.
Microsoft beat Apple to the iPod patent!
Pamela Jones has been thinking about the patent reform proposals proceeding through Congress that mean it will be the first to file a patent that owns an invention, not the first to invent. And about Microsoft sniggering about getting to the Patent Office before Apple to patent an element of key iPod technology.
"Now, I don't know all the ins and outs of this particular case, but let's assume that the reports are 100% accurate, although that would be a media first, and things happened just that way, and let's think about the situation under the first-to-file rule. Microsoft wins hands down, then, despite Apple being the earlier inventor. Are you sure you like that result? Not you, Microsoft. We know you are chortling. The rest of you.
The Patent Office may look deeper and realize what they've done, and hopefully justice will be done there, or in court later, but the only reason that can happen is because so far the US is a country with a law whereby a patent can be invalidated by prior art or proof of prior invention. While nothing is right about a system where Apple will have to spend maybe millions to straighten this out, at least they have the hope of being able to do so under the current system.
My question is, how could something like this happen under the current system? The Patent Office examiner never saw an iPod? And more pertinently, Microsoft didn't know about iPods, when it filed its patent? Puh-lease. And yet, do you feel 100% sure that Apple will win? The US patent system is an unholy mess, and the law in practice has become so bizarre and arbitrary and out of sync with the way the system was set up to work that you can't even predictably rely on a just outcome. Laws are supposed to at least be *trying* to bring about a just result.
Here's my next question... did Microsoft list the iPod, like they are supposed to, when they filed for their patent? You're not allowed to hide prior art. When you are applying for a patent, you have a duty of candor, as they put it, to list all prior art you know about. iPods. We're talking iPods. Is there anyone left on the planet who hasn't heard of iPods?
It's an affirmative defense in any patent infringement lawsuit, if the patent was gained by knowingly concealing prior art. It's called inequitable conduct, and it can result in a patent that isn't enforceable. What? Microsoft? Inequitable conduct?"
"Now, I don't know all the ins and outs of this particular case, but let's assume that the reports are 100% accurate, although that would be a media first, and things happened just that way, and let's think about the situation under the first-to-file rule. Microsoft wins hands down, then, despite Apple being the earlier inventor. Are you sure you like that result? Not you, Microsoft. We know you are chortling. The rest of you.
The Patent Office may look deeper and realize what they've done, and hopefully justice will be done there, or in court later, but the only reason that can happen is because so far the US is a country with a law whereby a patent can be invalidated by prior art or proof of prior invention. While nothing is right about a system where Apple will have to spend maybe millions to straighten this out, at least they have the hope of being able to do so under the current system.
My question is, how could something like this happen under the current system? The Patent Office examiner never saw an iPod? And more pertinently, Microsoft didn't know about iPods, when it filed its patent? Puh-lease. And yet, do you feel 100% sure that Apple will win? The US patent system is an unholy mess, and the law in practice has become so bizarre and arbitrary and out of sync with the way the system was set up to work that you can't even predictably rely on a just outcome. Laws are supposed to at least be *trying* to bring about a just result.
Here's my next question... did Microsoft list the iPod, like they are supposed to, when they filed for their patent? You're not allowed to hide prior art. When you are applying for a patent, you have a duty of candor, as they put it, to list all prior art you know about. iPods. We're talking iPods. Is there anyone left on the planet who hasn't heard of iPods?
It's an affirmative defense in any patent infringement lawsuit, if the patent was gained by knowingly concealing prior art. It's called inequitable conduct, and it can result in a patent that isn't enforceable. What? Microsoft? Inequitable conduct?"
EU Commission to sue premier league
Looks like the European Commission are going to take legal action against the Premier League over the lack of competition in televising games. More power to them.
When my six year old excitedly told me Arsenal were playing yesterday and asked if we could watch it "on our television" (we don't have BskyB), he was a bit put out to hear we wouldn't be able to see the match.
"Aaawww. It's not right Dad. I'm very annoyed. They shouldn't do it like that. They're naughty. They should make it so that we can watch it on our television too."
I could only respond to his determined little frown by telling him he was absolutely right.
Mind you, when we sat down to watch Match of the Day (recorded from Saturday evening for Sunday morning viewing) he was less than impressed with the quality of the football served up on the opening day of the new season. At least the earlier frown was replaced by his sparkling grin when he discovered later in the day that the Gunners had secured a comforable two-nil win against Newcastle.
When my six year old excitedly told me Arsenal were playing yesterday and asked if we could watch it "on our television" (we don't have BskyB), he was a bit put out to hear we wouldn't be able to see the match.
"Aaawww. It's not right Dad. I'm very annoyed. They shouldn't do it like that. They're naughty. They should make it so that we can watch it on our television too."
I could only respond to his determined little frown by telling him he was absolutely right.
Mind you, when we sat down to watch Match of the Day (recorded from Saturday evening for Sunday morning viewing) he was less than impressed with the quality of the football served up on the opening day of the new season. At least the earlier frown was replaced by his sparkling grin when he discovered later in the day that the Gunners had secured a comforable two-nil win against Newcastle.
To ecourage creativity get rid of the suits
Jonathan Rowe wants to get rid of the suits in the creative industries.
"We’ve all heard the justifications for the emerging property police state – the copyright term extensions, the international jihad on infringers, the government mandating of anti-copying technology and the rest. It’s to protect the “creative process,”, the inspired artist laboring away in a basement or garage.
To listen to the whining from the film and recording industries, it is a wonder that a Charlie Chaplin ever bothered to pick up a camera, or Frank Sinatra to croon a song, seeing that the term of copyright was much shorter in their days than it is now...
Once in a while the truth slips out, which it did recently in GW Magazine, which is published by George Washington University in D.C. The magazine (Spring/Summer 2005) did a profile of Dan Glickman, the former Congressman and Agriculture Secretary and a G.W. alum, who has succeeded Jack Valenti as head of the Motion Picture Association of America. The piece quotes Glickman on the industry’s crackdown on copying. “The average movie today costs $103 million to make,” he says, “and six out of 10 of them don’t make that money back. Making movies has become incredibly expensive — and that’s why preventing piracy has become so crucial.”
It’s not about a creative process but rather a non-creative one, with bloated budgets and overpaid and often under-talented stars. The push in other words comes from the business side of the house – the side that often pulverizes the very talent the lobbyists in Washington are claiming to nurture."
"We’ve all heard the justifications for the emerging property police state – the copyright term extensions, the international jihad on infringers, the government mandating of anti-copying technology and the rest. It’s to protect the “creative process,”, the inspired artist laboring away in a basement or garage.
To listen to the whining from the film and recording industries, it is a wonder that a Charlie Chaplin ever bothered to pick up a camera, or Frank Sinatra to croon a song, seeing that the term of copyright was much shorter in their days than it is now...
Once in a while the truth slips out, which it did recently in GW Magazine, which is published by George Washington University in D.C. The magazine (Spring/Summer 2005) did a profile of Dan Glickman, the former Congressman and Agriculture Secretary and a G.W. alum, who has succeeded Jack Valenti as head of the Motion Picture Association of America. The piece quotes Glickman on the industry’s crackdown on copying. “The average movie today costs $103 million to make,” he says, “and six out of 10 of them don’t make that money back. Making movies has become incredibly expensive — and that’s why preventing piracy has become so crucial.”
It’s not about a creative process but rather a non-creative one, with bloated budgets and overpaid and often under-talented stars. The push in other words comes from the business side of the house – the side that often pulverizes the very talent the lobbyists in Washington are claiming to nurture."
The 2004 election conspiracy theory
Project censored have a report from an academic in California, Dennis Loo, who believes that George Bush won the 2004 election with the help of widespread fraud. There certainly were anomalies in the vote but I'm not convinced there was the kind of centrally orchestrated fraud theorised here. Some very smart evoting experts monitored the election and picked up on most of the issues mentioned and others. In spite of the problems, though, the likes of Ed Felten, Avi Rubin and Bruce Schneier have never suggested that the election was stolen, as believed by Dennis Loo.
Certainly there remain unanswered questions and the explanations thus far offered for some of the inconsistencies don't hold water. The sum of a series of unexplained difficulties does not always amount to a central conspiracy, however. Though there would seem to be plenty of merit in investigating local anomalies in order to track down the real causes. Complex processes will always exhibit complex localised problems and folks like Rubin and Felten have gone to great lengths to explain the issues with introducing electronic voting machines into the election process. Their predictions the the kind of problems we would see following the inappropriate deployment poorly designed version of these machines will to some extent have been borne out in the 2004 election. Getting to the root of the actual causes in the various localities in the live election will be important so that the process can be repaired for the next time.
Certainly there remain unanswered questions and the explanations thus far offered for some of the inconsistencies don't hold water. The sum of a series of unexplained difficulties does not always amount to a central conspiracy, however. Though there would seem to be plenty of merit in investigating local anomalies in order to track down the real causes. Complex processes will always exhibit complex localised problems and folks like Rubin and Felten have gone to great lengths to explain the issues with introducing electronic voting machines into the election process. Their predictions the the kind of problems we would see following the inappropriate deployment poorly designed version of these machines will to some extent have been borne out in the 2004 election. Getting to the root of the actual causes in the various localities in the live election will be important so that the process can be repaired for the next time.
Teachers first for ID cards
According to the Sunday Times, the government are considering making ID cards compulsory for teachers and childcare workers "years before they become mandatory for everyone else"
Friday, August 12, 2005
Da Vinci Code film
John's been thinking about the secrecy surrounding the making of the film version of Dan Brown's bestselling book, the Da Vinci Code.
"There are rumours of strong pressure on the film-makers to change the plot of the book (thereby, it seems to me, missing the entire point of the book).
Here’s how things stack up: on the one hand, there are all those Da Vinci Code fans out there (37 million copies sold, so far); on the other, all those devout Christian fanatics. Which way will Sony jump? Watch this space…"
"There are rumours of strong pressure on the film-makers to change the plot of the book (thereby, it seems to me, missing the entire point of the book).
Here’s how things stack up: on the one hand, there are all those Da Vinci Code fans out there (37 million copies sold, so far); on the other, all those devout Christian fanatics. Which way will Sony jump? Watch this space…"
Google better at searching gov sites
From what's new on the UK legal web,
"you will generally get a more helpful result set using a Google site search of government sites (ie prefix the search terms with site:gov.uk) than you will by just searching within Directgov."
"you will generally get a more helpful result set using a Google site search of government sites (ie prefix the search terms with site:gov.uk) than you will by just searching within Directgov."
Minority report on the identity trail
Hilary Young on the indentity trail confesses she doesn't care much about informational privacy and companies collecting details about her so they can target appropriate offers in her direction.
"Now before you revoke my membership in the On the Identity Trail project, let me defend myself. I think one of the most important things this project is doing is imagining the implications of various future legal, policy and technological changes so that we as a society can make informed decisions about what we want to happen. If, knowing the consequences, people want to live in a Minority Report-type world where ads are targeted to specific individuals, that's fine by me. The problem is that we risk ending up in such situations, not because we've chosen them, but because we have made a number of incremental decisions that led to an undesirable result only because we didn't have the foresight to avoid it."
Incremental ill-informed decisions that lead to undesirable results are, unfortunately, all too common in the technology arena.
"Now before you revoke my membership in the On the Identity Trail project, let me defend myself. I think one of the most important things this project is doing is imagining the implications of various future legal, policy and technological changes so that we as a society can make informed decisions about what we want to happen. If, knowing the consequences, people want to live in a Minority Report-type world where ads are targeted to specific individuals, that's fine by me. The problem is that we risk ending up in such situations, not because we've chosen them, but because we have made a number of incremental decisions that led to an undesirable result only because we didn't have the foresight to avoid it."
Incremental ill-informed decisions that lead to undesirable results are, unfortunately, all too common in the technology arena.
DMCA v Darknet
Ed Felton is amongst the participants in an online discussion next week on the balancing the benefits of developments in technology against the downside that those technologies can also be used towards less than ethical ends. Promises to be lively with a cast of very smart thinkers on the issues.
Open access and the academy
Heather Morrison has been thinking about the positive feedback she's got recently on one of her articles available in an open repository and the benefits more generally of open access.
The description of her blog also gives you an idea of her perspective on all this:
Timeliness: by archiving a preprint, I am able to reach potential readers in a much more timely fashion.
Impact: by sharing the article openly, more people are reading it, and acting on the ideas. Others have demonstrated the academic impact advantage of open access (increased citations) through research. This is real world impact - most likely to be relevant for faculty in the professional programs. This makes professional practice informed by research possible, illustrated by the trend towards evidence-based medicine.
Access: people whose libraries do not have subscriptions are much more likely to read the article.
Prestige: for those who do write and present a fair bit, this is a way to show off. This is not (entirely) self-serving; read on...
The description of her blog also gives you an idea of her perspective on all this:
Imagine a world where anyone can instantly access all of the world's scholarly knowledge - as profound a change as the invention of the printing press. Technically, this is within reach. All that is needed is a little imagination, to reconsider the economics of scholarly communications from a poetic viewpoint.
Google Print scans on hold until November
Google's effort to digitise all the world's out-of-copyright books is suspending the scanning of books until November to give publishers and authors an opportunity to opt out of having their books included in the project.
Update: Aaron Swartz is not pleased. And Siva and Derek Slater have entered that particular debate.
Update: Aaron Swartz is not pleased. And Siva and Derek Slater have entered that particular debate.
Isenberg on the new FCC approach to the Net
David Isenberg is concerned at the change in approach of the FCC, since Michael Powell stepped down and former FCC commissioner Kevin Martin took over as chairman.
Some of the people commenting on his posting disagree and see little difference between the new chairman and the old.
Powell: Freedom to access content.
Martin: Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
Powell: Freedom to run applications.
Martin: Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
Powell: Freedom to attach devices.
Martin: Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
Powell: Freedom to obtain service plan information.
Martin: Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
And the Martin FCC adds an important footnote:
All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management.
Some of the people commenting on his posting disagree and see little difference between the new chairman and the old.
Thought thieve$
From the EFF:
"Never afraid to reach new heights on the unintentional
comedy scale, Microsoft UK debuted its "Thought Thieves"
film competition in May. Microsoft called for original
videos "about people stealing the ideas in your head"
and "intellectual property theft."
To counter this misleading campaign, a few good souls
"stole" the idea and started the "Thought Thieve$" film
competition "about big companies stealing and profiting
from the knowledge commons." Reads the announcement:
"Think about it: how would you feel if you saw your
cultural traditions, collective creativity,
thousands-year-old seed strains, indigenous medicinal
knowledge, or even your very genetic code being passed
off as the property of some multinational corporation?
What would you do?"
EFF is an affiliate of the competition, so we're helping
to spread the word! If you have a story to tell about corporate piracy, send your short film in by September
16, 2005. You may win prizes and be included in an
international distribution and screening series.
Check out the contest website for details: http://thought-thieves.org"
Clever. It will be interesting to see how the entries in the rival competitions compare!
"Never afraid to reach new heights on the unintentional
comedy scale, Microsoft UK debuted its "Thought Thieves"
film competition in May. Microsoft called for original
videos "about people stealing the ideas in your head"
and "intellectual property theft."
To counter this misleading campaign, a few good souls
"stole" the idea and started the "Thought Thieve$" film
competition "about big companies stealing and profiting
from the knowledge commons." Reads the announcement:
"Think about it: how would you feel if you saw your
cultural traditions, collective creativity,
thousands-year-old seed strains, indigenous medicinal
knowledge, or even your very genetic code being passed
off as the property of some multinational corporation?
What would you do?"
EFF is an affiliate of the competition, so we're helping
to spread the word! If you have a story to tell about corporate piracy, send your short film in by September
16, 2005. You may win prizes and be included in an
international distribution and screening series.
Check out the contest website for details: http://thought-thieves.org"
Clever. It will be interesting to see how the entries in the rival competitions compare!
Court dismiss Jet Blue privacy suit
A court in New York has thrown out a privacy lawsuit against JetBlue airways over their controversial disclosure of passenger details to the government as raw material to test a data mining system. EPIC have some background information on their involvement in chasing the government for details of why the information was handed over and how it was used.
In September 2003, JetBlue Airways confirmed that it had provided 5 million passenger itineraries, without the passengers' consent, to defense contractor Torch Concepts to test the feasibility of an Army data mining project. Torch Concepts added to the JetBlue data information it purchased from Acxiom, a large consumer research company. This information included passengers' Social Security numbers, occupations, income, gender, home ownership, car ownership, and the number of adults and children living in the passengers' households.
On February 20, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Privacy Office released a report (pdf) on the JetBlue disclosure which said that in 2002 officials of Torch Concepts met with Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials. After this meeting, a TSA employee sent JetBlue a written request asking the airline to provide passenger data to the Defense Department for use in the Torch Concepts study. The report found that TSA employees involved "acted without appropriate regard for individual privacy interests or the spirit of the Privacy Act of 1974," but that no violation of the law had occurred.
In April 2004, American Airlines' parent corporation issued a press release admitting that an American Airlines vender had turned over passenger travel data to four research companies vying for contracts with TSA.
In April 2004, EPIC received documents from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in response to a FOIA request. One document (pdf) stated that Northwest Airlines "gave the FBI one year's [passenger] data on 6000 CDs."
To learn the extent of the government's passenger data collection scheme, and to determine whether passenger data might have been collected for purposes of developing the controversial second-generation Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II), EPIC ultimately sent four expedited Freedom of Information Act requests to TSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seeking information on passenger data disclosure from any airline since September 11, 2001, as well as records relating to Acxiom, Torch Concepts, and SRS Technologies (the primary contractor in the Defense Department project).
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Ridiculous lawsuits
I'm currently writing a book about decision making in the realm of the development, deployment and regulation of technology but I'm thinking about writing another one about ridiculous lawsuits in a similar context. This is partly because we've all heard stories, like this one, about silly cases that should never get anywhere near a busy courtroom, let alone resulted in that daft outcome.
What may seem funny to the casual external observer, however, is rarely a funny experience for the parties on the receiving end, who have had the misfortune of making a mistake in crossing the path of serial, sometimes even unknowing (I doubt Fed Ex management knew about this in advance) or opportunistic litigants with smart or equally opportunistic lawyers. The other problem is that lawyers live in a completely different world to the rest of us - a world where it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do to protect the interests of your client by threatening to sue someone for making furniture out of their cardboard boxes.
A variation on a theme is the vengeful litigant intent on extracting their requisite pound of flesh from someone who has outwitted them, as is the case with school district pressing charges against teenagers who bypassed the filters on school issued laptops. It wasn't difficult, since the admin password was apparently taped on the back of all the machines. Some of the children involved have been expelled from school and we don't know the details of what each individual did with their filter-free freedoms but trying to ensure they all end up with a criminal record is not sensible course of action. Even the police chief caught up in expediting the felony charges doesn't seem to think the kids did anything malicious, (though that could be journalistic interpretation to fit in with the rest of the piece). Whatever happens in the end, very few people will come out of this one unscathed. The parents of the 13 charged have set up a website on the case. They don't want the " kids to get off without appropriate consequences" but the looming consequences are disproportionate.
Thanks to Michael Geist for the links to both stories.
What may seem funny to the casual external observer, however, is rarely a funny experience for the parties on the receiving end, who have had the misfortune of making a mistake in crossing the path of serial, sometimes even unknowing (I doubt Fed Ex management knew about this in advance) or opportunistic litigants with smart or equally opportunistic lawyers. The other problem is that lawyers live in a completely different world to the rest of us - a world where it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do to protect the interests of your client by threatening to sue someone for making furniture out of their cardboard boxes.
A variation on a theme is the vengeful litigant intent on extracting their requisite pound of flesh from someone who has outwitted them, as is the case with school district pressing charges against teenagers who bypassed the filters on school issued laptops. It wasn't difficult, since the admin password was apparently taped on the back of all the machines. Some of the children involved have been expelled from school and we don't know the details of what each individual did with their filter-free freedoms but trying to ensure they all end up with a criminal record is not sensible course of action. Even the police chief caught up in expediting the felony charges doesn't seem to think the kids did anything malicious, (though that could be journalistic interpretation to fit in with the rest of the piece). Whatever happens in the end, very few people will come out of this one unscathed. The parents of the 13 charged have set up a website on the case. They don't want the " kids to get off without appropriate consequences" but the looming consequences are disproportionate.
Thanks to Michael Geist for the links to both stories.
LSE respond to government criticism on ID cards
The LSE have produced a 30 page response to the government's criticisms of their Identity Project report. This press release gives a brief overview,
The Home Office document contains some interesting elements and we welcome the fact that the project team are engaging more fully with critics. But we are disappointed that the HO response contains substantial material errors and misrepresentation of fact. It also sets out rebuttals that cite material which is not relevant to the points in question. On a number of critical issues, HO's response rebuts aspects of the LSE report without providing alternative data (for example, on assumptions relating to population data, card loss and damage rates and the card replacement rates due to change in personal circumstances).
It is equally disappointing that the Home Office has chosen to disregard the vast majority of the LSE report. Comprehensive sections on identity fraud, policing, crime, national security, counter-terrorism, discrimination, international obligations and the UK IT environment have been ignored. Even within the two narrow areas that were chosen for rebuttal (cost projections and the alternative blueprint) 80 per cent of the relevant parts of the LSE report - some 25,000 words of analysis of costings and alternative approaches - are not commented upon.
FFII site takedown
From the excellent EDRI-gram, "The long running legal fight between the German software company Nutzwerk (Leipzig) and the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII, best known for its extensive lobby against software patents) has culminated in the takedown of the FFII.org website on 1 August 2005."
The latest EDRI-gram also brings news of the long running Napster case in Norway regarding whether linking to sites with copyright infringing material could constitute making the material available to the public and hence bring on liability.
"The Court states that it is beyond doubt that making a web-address known on a website does not constitute a 'making available to the public', regardless of whether or not the link refers to a web-address containing legally or illegally published material. Whether a web-address is expressed on the Internet or in a newspaper is immaterial."
The latest EDRI-gram also brings news of the long running Napster case in Norway regarding whether linking to sites with copyright infringing material could constitute making the material available to the public and hence bring on liability.
"The Court states that it is beyond doubt that making a web-address known on a website does not constitute a 'making available to the public', regardless of whether or not the link refers to a web-address containing legally or illegally published material. Whether a web-address is expressed on the Internet or in a newspaper is immaterial."
Another IT system hiccough
The Telegraph is reporting that the government's " much-vaunted "prison without bars" system of electronic tags for sex offenders has suffered severe technical problems" and the Home Office press office, not surprisingly, "strongly advised against any publicity." Naturally the news leaked.
Real ID mess
Anita Ramasastry of the University of Washington School of Law thinks the Real ID Act in the US is a real mess. Having been voted down as a substantive piece of legislation last year it was then tacked on spending plans for the war on terror and the tsunami relief and sneaked through without debate. Ramasastry says it will be a nightmare for state governments who have to fund the technical infrastruture, without any extra financial support from the federal government.
"No wonder, then, that more than 600 organizations have expressed concern over the Real ID Act. Organizations such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the American Library Association the Association for Computing Machinery, the National Council of State Legislatures, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the National Governors Association are among them."
Here in the UK, the government's original plans to fund the ID cards through fees have taken a hammering as people have begun to realise how much they will cost and support for the scheme drops off. So the Home Office have promised to cap the fee in an attempt to ease concerns, though I doubt Gordon Brown and the treasury will be keen on that idea. £5billion to £19 billion is going to have to be found somewhere and with fuel prices shooting through the roof I suspect the prospect of forking out hard earned income to help build a large public IT white elephant will become an even less attractive prospect for many.
"No wonder, then, that more than 600 organizations have expressed concern over the Real ID Act. Organizations such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the American Library Association the Association for Computing Machinery, the National Council of State Legislatures, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the National Governors Association are among them."
Here in the UK, the government's original plans to fund the ID cards through fees have taken a hammering as people have begun to realise how much they will cost and support for the scheme drops off. So the Home Office have promised to cap the fee in an attempt to ease concerns, though I doubt Gordon Brown and the treasury will be keen on that idea. £5billion to £19 billion is going to have to be found somewhere and with fuel prices shooting through the roof I suspect the prospect of forking out hard earned income to help build a large public IT white elephant will become an even less attractive prospect for many.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Intelligence Officer Investigated over Spy Blog contact
A field intelligence officer is apparently being investigated over contacts with Spy Blog.
2nd amendment for the digital era
John Robert Behrman has a thought provoking treatise over at William Heath's Ideal Government blog. He's a supporter of the US contitutional right to bear arms. Now though he is a fan of guns, it's his extension of this right to cryptography in the digital context that's really interesting:
"In the digital era each and every one of us needs to secure his or her personal identity with strong, trusted cryptographic resources, yes, including military-grade technology now scheduled on the Department of Commerce “Munitions List”.
We need to do this …
Political extremists love to present the public and private, the individual and collective, order and disorder in stark, radical, and simple rhetorical, even Manichean, terms, as if we have to choose one over the other. Those are false choices offered by those as would steal your and my freedom of action. Such people love to claim “everything has changed!” meaning they want to repudiate something we might hold dear."
He goes on to attack the Texas incantation of the Help America Vote intitiative, which he describes as the latest excuse to build a " giant, centralized, database for near real-time political-economic surveillance of everybody in this country, everywhere, all the time."
Read the whole thing. I nearly didn't because I intially thought it was a "gun-nut" (as Berhman describes another friend) sounding off. You may or may not agree with him but he'll make you stop and think.
"In the digital era each and every one of us needs to secure his or her personal identity with strong, trusted cryptographic resources, yes, including military-grade technology now scheduled on the Department of Commerce “Munitions List”.
We need to do this …
(a) To protect ourselves and our property from identity theft; …
(b) To assert our individual civil and property rights, without being preyed upon by oppressive government or piratical business agents; …
(c) To add value in all manner of professional and commercial transactions that depend on authentic credentials and reputation; and, …
(d) Yes, to uphold our largely private civic order and complement other, mostly public means, of collective security that, together, make the criminals, insurgents, or terrorists in our midst conspicuous, unsafe, and unbalanced -- not you or me.
Political extremists love to present the public and private, the individual and collective, order and disorder in stark, radical, and simple rhetorical, even Manichean, terms, as if we have to choose one over the other. Those are false choices offered by those as would steal your and my freedom of action. Such people love to claim “everything has changed!” meaning they want to repudiate something we might hold dear."
He goes on to attack the Texas incantation of the Help America Vote intitiative, which he describes as the latest excuse to build a " giant, centralized, database for near real-time political-economic surveillance of everybody in this country, everywhere, all the time."
Read the whole thing. I nearly didn't because I intially thought it was a "gun-nut" (as Berhman describes another friend) sounding off. You may or may not agree with him but he'll make you stop and think.
Thrash day at Politech
Declan McCullagh is having a thrash day at Politech, following his recent concerns about the rules allowing law enforcement authorities access to peoples' rubbish without a warrant. He's pointed out at an interesting story at Willamette Weekly Online. The local paper, following the police chief's, the mayor's and the district attorney's support for the right to search a suspect's rubbish without judicial oversight, decided to do a little rubbish trawling themselves. Reporters from the paper went through the garbage left by the roadside, by each of these three officials, for refuse collection. The public prosecutor was the only one of the three who saw the funny side. The mayor's threatening to sue.
"Each, in his or her own way, has endorsed the notion that you abandon your privacy when you set your trash out on the curb. So we figured they wouldn't mind too much if we took a peek at theirs.
Boy, were we wrong.
Perched in his office on the 15th floor of the Justice Center, Chief Kroeker seemed perfectly comfortable with the idea of trash as public property.
"Things inside your house are to be guarded," he told WW. "Those that are in the trash are open for trash men and pickers and--and police. And so it's not a matter of privacy anymore."
Then we spread some highlights from our haul on the table in front of him.
"This is very cheap," he blurted out...
If the chief got overheated, the mayor went nuclear. When we confessed that we had swiped her recycling, she summoned us to her chambers.
"She wants you to bring the trash--and bring the name of your attorney," said her press secretary, Sarah Bott...
...her office issued a prepared statement. "I consider Willamette Week's actions in this matter to be potentially illegal and absolutely unscrupulous and reprehensible," it read. "I will consider all my legal options in response to their actions."
In contrast, DA Mike Schrunk was almost playful when we owned up to nosing through his kitchen scraps. "Do I have to pay for this week's garbage collection?" he joked...
It's worth emphasizing that our junkaeological dig unearthed no whiff of scandal...
But if three moral, upstanding, public-spirited citizens were each chewing their nails about the secrets we might have stumbled on, how the hell should the rest of us be feeling?"
Gateway Review - three quarters may fail
Under a Freedom of Information Act request the UK Government have provided the list of 271 major IT projects that have been subject to the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Review process, revealing that more than three quarters are not progressing according to plans.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Cracking the Books
From Donna
"Princeton University, intellectual home of Edward Felten and Alex Halderman, has evidently begun to experiment with DRM'd textbooks."
"Princeton University, intellectual home of Edward Felten and Alex Halderman, has evidently begun to experiment with DRM'd textbooks."
The crackdown
The crackdown from yesterday's Observer. A report on the prime minister's latest round of anti-terrorism proposals.
The Shout on Ciscogate part 4
Jennifer Granick has posted her final episode of the story about a young researcher getting sued by Cisco and his former employer for revealing security vunerabilities with Cisco products.
A Society Drunk on Technology
Frank Work, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, has been blogging on the Identity Trail.
He's right of course: We sometimes lack the willingness to think and analyze before we act.
We sometimes lack the willingness to think and analyze before we act. In a world where we become impatient if it takes more than a second to download a two thousand page document, where we expect an immediate reply to our email, where we expect someone to answer their cellphone wherever, whenever we call, where we demand instant credit and immediate gratification of our wants, we tend to look for the immediate fix to problems. And, we usually adopt the techno-fix, so strongly do we believe in the power of technology. But the techno-fix, the quick-fix, is not always the best fix: there is, after all, the law of unintended consequences. There is an old Luddite saying: “Act in haste, repent at leisure.”
He's right of course: We sometimes lack the willingness to think and analyze before we act.
The Rubbish and 1984
Declan McCullagh is concerned that it is legal for the law enforcement authorities to be able to trawl through people's rubbish for evidence. Justice James C. Nelson in an opinion confirming such activity as legal is also concerned:
"In short, I know that my personal information is recorded in databases, servers, hard drives and file cabinets all over the world. I know that these portals to the most intimate details of my life are restricted only by the degree of sophistication and goodwill or malevolence of the person, institution, corporation or government that wants access to my data.
I also know that much of my life can be reconstructed from the contents of my garbage can.
I don't like living in Orwell's 1984; but I do. And, absent the next extinction event or civil libertarians taking charge of the government (the former being more likely than the latter), the best we can do is try to keep Sam and the sub-Sams on a short leash."
Declan includes Justice Nelson's concurring opinion from the relevant recent case at the end of his article.
"In short, I know that my personal information is recorded in databases, servers, hard drives and file cabinets all over the world. I know that these portals to the most intimate details of my life are restricted only by the degree of sophistication and goodwill or malevolence of the person, institution, corporation or government that wants access to my data.
I also know that much of my life can be reconstructed from the contents of my garbage can.
I don't like living in Orwell's 1984; but I do. And, absent the next extinction event or civil libertarians taking charge of the government (the former being more likely than the latter), the best we can do is try to keep Sam and the sub-Sams on a short leash."
Declan includes Justice Nelson's concurring opinion from the relevant recent case at the end of his article.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Copy protected Sony CDs don't work with iPods
Furdlog has picked up a story saying Sony's copy protected CDs don't work with iPods.
Skip the border guard
Skip the border guard, fast-track the IT - security, UK style John Lettice in full flow
"So shall we just sum that up? A terror suspect appears to have fled the country by the simple expedient of walking past an empty desk, and the Government's reaction is not to put somebody at the desk, or to find out why, during one of the biggest manhunts London has ever seen, it was empty in the first place. No, the Government's reaction is to explain its abject failure to play with the toys it's got by calling for bigger, more expensive toys sooner."
It's a wide ranging article, well worth reading in full.
"So shall we just sum that up? A terror suspect appears to have fled the country by the simple expedient of walking past an empty desk, and the Government's reaction is not to put somebody at the desk, or to find out why, during one of the biggest manhunts London has ever seen, it was empty in the first place. No, the Government's reaction is to explain its abject failure to play with the toys it's got by calling for bigger, more expensive toys sooner."
It's a wide ranging article, well worth reading in full.
New EU IP crime directive proposed
The EU have proposed a new directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights. A html version is also available. Pamela Jones at Groklaw is concerned that it is the kind of legal framework that companies like SCO would have a field day with. Looks to me at first glance like an adjunct to the IPR enforcement directive passed in the Spring of 2004.
Schneier on Ciscogate
Bruce Schneier turns his usual sensible take on all things to do with security to the Cisco v Lynn dispute.
"I've written about full disclosure, and how disclosing security vulnerabilities is our best mechanism for improving security -- especially in a free-market system. (That essay is also worth reading for a general discussion of the security trade-offs.) I've also written about how security companies treat vulnerabilities as public-relations problems first and technical problems second. This week at BlackHat, security researcher Michael Lynn and Cisco demonstrated both points...
The security implications of this are enormous. If companies have the power to censor information about their products they don't like, then we as consumers have less information with which to make intelligent buying decisions. If companies have the power to squelch vulnerability information about their products, then there's no incentive for them to improve security...
Full disclosure is good for society. But because it helps the bad guys as well as the good guys (see my essay on secrecy and security for more discussion of the balance), many of us have championed "responsible disclosure" guidelines that give vendors a head start in fixing vulnerabilities before they're announced."
"I've written about full disclosure, and how disclosing security vulnerabilities is our best mechanism for improving security -- especially in a free-market system. (That essay is also worth reading for a general discussion of the security trade-offs.) I've also written about how security companies treat vulnerabilities as public-relations problems first and technical problems second. This week at BlackHat, security researcher Michael Lynn and Cisco demonstrated both points...
The security implications of this are enormous. If companies have the power to censor information about their products they don't like, then we as consumers have less information with which to make intelligent buying decisions. If companies have the power to squelch vulnerability information about their products, then there's no incentive for them to improve security...
Full disclosure is good for society. But because it helps the bad guys as well as the good guys (see my essay on secrecy and security for more discussion of the balance), many of us have championed "responsible disclosure" guidelines that give vendors a head start in fixing vulnerabilities before they're announced."
Ciscogate
Jennifer Granick has the inside story on Cisco suing security researcher Mike Lynn over his talk explaining a Cisco security vunerability at the Black Hat conference recently. She represented Lynn in the legal negotiations which were eventually settled out of court.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Shocking Orwell
Victor Keegan in the Guardian thinks George Orwell would be shocked at present day support for surveillance technologies.
UK minister apologises for overselling ID cards
The UK government are trying new kinder, gentler tactics to persuade people about the need for ID cards now that public support for the idea is dropping off. Home Office minister Tony McNulty who is in charge of the scheme has admitted that the government got a bit carried away in implying that the ID cards might
"be a panacea for identity fraud, benefit fraud, terrorism, and entitlement and access to public services...
Perhaps we ran away with it in our enthusiasm. I apologise for our overselling the case for ID cards ..."
That's a bit of a turn up for the books but the cynic in me sees it as little more than more politicking, since they are going ahead with the scheme anyway and they're still going on the attack against the LSE and other critics. The Guardian article seems to be suggesting that the sudden realisation of the existence of a procedural blockage could be behind the softer approach. Apparently the House of Lords will be able to stop the cards being made compulsory because the government intended to slip this through in secondary legislation. But if the Lords say no to this there will be nothing the government can do about it.
This is a classic example of where arcane but supremely important constitutional procedures, of almost no interest to all but the dedicated few, have a real, direct, practical effect on the lives of every citizen. If that's what it takes to kill the ID card proposals currently on the table then more power to those Lords' elbows.
"be a panacea for identity fraud, benefit fraud, terrorism, and entitlement and access to public services...
Perhaps we ran away with it in our enthusiasm. I apologise for our overselling the case for ID cards ..."
That's a bit of a turn up for the books but the cynic in me sees it as little more than more politicking, since they are going ahead with the scheme anyway and they're still going on the attack against the LSE and other critics. The Guardian article seems to be suggesting that the sudden realisation of the existence of a procedural blockage could be behind the softer approach. Apparently the House of Lords will be able to stop the cards being made compulsory because the government intended to slip this through in secondary legislation. But if the Lords say no to this there will be nothing the government can do about it.
This is a classic example of where arcane but supremely important constitutional procedures, of almost no interest to all but the dedicated few, have a real, direct, practical effect on the lives of every citizen. If that's what it takes to kill the ID card proposals currently on the table then more power to those Lords' elbows.
Canadian ISP blocks 766 sites
In it's efforts to block access to a union website, Canadian ISP, Telnus also inadvertently blocked out another 766 websites, according to the OpenNet Initiative run jointly by the Citizen Lab at the Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, and the Advanced Network Research Group at Cambridge University.
Blocked sites included those of an engineering company, a breast cancer charity and a recycling company. Because they chose to filter on the basis of the IP address, it resulted in this extensive "collatoral filtering".
Crude filtering can and does result in unnecessary censorship. In one case the ONI discovered that South Korean ISPs attempting to block access to 31 North Korean sites, also blocked 3167 sites hosted on the same servers as the sites targeted. This blog is regularly blocked, as crude filters assume that the treble x in the title means that it must be some sort of porn site. I've been at conference centres where I can't access my own blog in order to check something out because of this and even when I am successful at getting a block lifted, the next automatic trawl puts my b2fxxx ramblings right back on that black list again.
Blocked sites included those of an engineering company, a breast cancer charity and a recycling company. Because they chose to filter on the basis of the IP address, it resulted in this extensive "collatoral filtering".
Crude filtering can and does result in unnecessary censorship. In one case the ONI discovered that South Korean ISPs attempting to block access to 31 North Korean sites, also blocked 3167 sites hosted on the same servers as the sites targeted. This blog is regularly blocked, as crude filters assume that the treble x in the title means that it must be some sort of porn site. I've been at conference centres where I can't access my own blog in order to check something out because of this and even when I am successful at getting a block lifted, the next automatic trawl puts my b2fxxx ramblings right back on that black list again.
Euro infringing my patent
The European Central Bank have been sued for patent infringement. The patent in question concerns the anti-counterfeiting measures used in Euro bank notes.
"Document Security Systems Inc. said in a lawsuit filed Monday in Luxembourg that all 30 billion euro bank notes in circulation infringe on a patent it acquired this year that was issued by the European Patent Office in 1999. It is seeking unspecified royalties from the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany."
"Document Security Systems Inc. said in a lawsuit filed Monday in Luxembourg that all 30 billion euro bank notes in circulation infringe on a patent it acquired this year that was issued by the European Patent Office in 1999. It is seeking unspecified royalties from the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany."
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Mowry v Viacom
William Patry recommends a copyright decision issued by judge Andrew Peck last week, Mowry v Viacom. Mowry complained that the Jim Carey film, "The Truman Show", infringed the copyright in his unpublished script. If you're into legalese it's certainly a clear, thoughful, thorough and sensible ruling. Given the amount of copyright litigation (including volumes of threatening cesae and desist letters) that goes on these days, what's interesting is the judge's clear exposition of the burden of proof on the plaintiff, which is higher than critics of copyright laws might have been led to expect.
For example, in respect of proving the alledged infringer's access to the infringed work, in the US "Access means that an alledged infringer had a 'reasonable possibility' - not simply a 'bear possibility' - of hearing [or seeing] the prior work; access cannot be based on mere 'speculation or conjecture.'" He goes on to explain what this means in real terms in relation to the relevant precedents.
There's even a bit of humour, in relation to the expert witness evidence Mowry used to demonstrate the similarity of the scripts:
"Mowry points to no case in which an expert using cladistic or phylogenetic tree analysis has been used to show striking similarity (or even substantial similarity) between literary works, and the Court's research has found no such cases. While it is true that there must be a first time for an expert methodology to be accepted by the courts, this is not the case."
No, I don't know what "cladistic or phylogenetic tree analysis" is either but full marks to Mowry for trying and to the judge for a clear, sensible decision. Sometimes the little guy loses for the right reasons.
For example, in respect of proving the alledged infringer's access to the infringed work, in the US "Access means that an alledged infringer had a 'reasonable possibility' - not simply a 'bear possibility' - of hearing [or seeing] the prior work; access cannot be based on mere 'speculation or conjecture.'" He goes on to explain what this means in real terms in relation to the relevant precedents.
There's even a bit of humour, in relation to the expert witness evidence Mowry used to demonstrate the similarity of the scripts:
"Mowry points to no case in which an expert using cladistic or phylogenetic tree analysis has been used to show striking similarity (or even substantial similarity) between literary works, and the Court's research has found no such cases. While it is true that there must be a first time for an expert methodology to be accepted by the courts, this is not the case."
No, I don't know what "cladistic or phylogenetic tree analysis" is either but full marks to Mowry for trying and to the judge for a clear, sensible decision. Sometimes the little guy loses for the right reasons.
BPI take 5 to court
The British Phonographic Industry are taking five people to court for P2P music swapping. They've already settled out of court with about 60 people according to this Guardian report but failed to reach a settlement with the folk they are suing. One woman has claimed she doesn't have the means to pay the £4000 the BPI are asking. In a familiar story, the teenage daughter was alledgedly involved in the copyright infringement and her mother has no computer skills and doesn't use the machine at all but "just pays the bills."
JISC £15 million for IT and open content
The Joint Information Systems Committee, JISC, have been given an "extra £15m to invest in IT initiatives to support learning, teaching and research." (on top of £25 million they got earlier in the year).
According to the announcement,
The funds, totalling £40m, will be used for a range of activities and represents a significant investment to support and enhance further the UK’s digital infrastructure, access to online content and the development of digital repositories...
The funding, which covers the years 2006 – 2008, will be invested in the following areas of activity:
continued development of the JANET network, including the incorporation of the UKLight testbed network, which links communities of researchers around the world, to JANET;
further digitisation of major scholarly collections;
enhancement to a range of e-learning programmes, including e-assessment, e-portfolios and e-learning tools;
development of the e-infrastructure, including the development of collaborative environments, such as virtual research environments;
development of a shared infrastructure to support the growing use of institutional repositories."
According to the announcement,
The funds, totalling £40m, will be used for a range of activities and represents a significant investment to support and enhance further the UK’s digital infrastructure, access to online content and the development of digital repositories...
The funding, which covers the years 2006 – 2008, will be invested in the following areas of activity:
continued development of the JANET network, including the incorporation of the UKLight testbed network, which links communities of researchers around the world, to JANET;
further digitisation of major scholarly collections;
enhancement to a range of e-learning programmes, including e-assessment, e-portfolios and e-learning tools;
development of the e-infrastructure, including the development of collaborative environments, such as virtual research environments;
development of a shared infrastructure to support the growing use of institutional repositories."
Monday, August 01, 2005
WiFi freeloading now crime in the UK
EdFelton draws my attention to a BBC story
"A British man has been fined and given a suspended prison sentence for connecting to a stranger’s WiFi access point without permission, according to a BBC story. There is no indication that he did anything improper while connected; all he did was to park his car in front of a stranger’s house and connect his laptop to the stranger’s open WiFi network. He was convicted of “dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service”...
Another part of the BBC article is even scarier:
“There have been incidences where paedophiles deliberately leave their wireless networks open so that, if caught, they can say that is wasn’t them that used the network for illegal purposes,” said NetSurity’s Mr Cracknell.
Such a defence would hold little water as the person installing the network, be they a home user or a business, has ultimate responsibility for any criminal activity that takes place on that network, whether it be launching a hack attack or downloading illegal pornography."
I doubt this is true. If it is, everybody who runs a WiFi network is at risk of a long jail sentence. "
"A British man has been fined and given a suspended prison sentence for connecting to a stranger’s WiFi access point without permission, according to a BBC story. There is no indication that he did anything improper while connected; all he did was to park his car in front of a stranger’s house and connect his laptop to the stranger’s open WiFi network. He was convicted of “dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service”...
Another part of the BBC article is even scarier:
“There have been incidences where paedophiles deliberately leave their wireless networks open so that, if caught, they can say that is wasn’t them that used the network for illegal purposes,” said NetSurity’s Mr Cracknell.
Such a defence would hold little water as the person installing the network, be they a home user or a business, has ultimate responsibility for any criminal activity that takes place on that network, whether it be launching a hack attack or downloading illegal pornography."
I doubt this is true. If it is, everybody who runs a WiFi network is at risk of a long jail sentence. "
Rule by fools
Bryan Caplan, Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University, reckons Rule By Fools Is the Rule,
"democratic rule by fools is perfectly normal. Or to be more accurate, in a democracy our rulers are older versions of the popular kids from high school. The only difference is that politicians are champions in the Olympics of popularity contests. They are painfully weak on substance, but have an amazing ability to make people like them. And if they have to choose between being right and being popular, they don't think twice. They're Olympians; their overriding priority is winning...
We're ruled by fools election after election because the majority habitually prefers affable fools to disagreeable pedants."
Wonderful!
"democratic rule by fools is perfectly normal. Or to be more accurate, in a democracy our rulers are older versions of the popular kids from high school. The only difference is that politicians are champions in the Olympics of popularity contests. They are painfully weak on substance, but have an amazing ability to make people like them. And if they have to choose between being right and being popular, they don't think twice. They're Olympians; their overriding priority is winning...
We're ruled by fools election after election because the majority habitually prefers affable fools to disagreeable pedants."
Wonderful!
Cory to drop Apple?
Cory Doctorow has been using Apple computers simce 1979. If they build drm into their new architecture, though, he's going to look for another vendor.
"I've been an Apple user since 1979. I've owned dozens -- probably more than a hundred -- Macintoshes. When I worked in the private sector, I used to write purchase orders for about a quarter-million dollars' worth of Apple hardware every year. I've stuck with the machines over the years because the fit-and-finish of the OS and the generally kick-ass hardware made them the best choice for me. I've converted innumerable people to the Mac (most recently I got my grandmother's octogenarian boyfriend to pick up a Mac Mini, which he loves). Hell, I even bought half a dozen Newtons over the years...
The Trusted Computing people say that they intend on Trusted Computing being used to stop the unauthorized distribution of music, but none of them has ever refuted the Darknet paper, where several of Trusted Computing's inventors explain that Trusted Computing isn't fit to this purpose.
The point of Trusted Computing is to make it hard -- impossible, if you believe the snake-oil salesmen from the Trusted Computing world -- to open a document in a player other than the one that wrote it in the first place, unless the application vendor authorizes it. It's like a blender that will only chop the food that Cuisinart says you're allowed to chop. It's like a car that will only take the brand of gas that Ford will let you fill it with. It's like a web-site that you can only load in the browser that the author intended it to be seen in...
So that means that if Apple carries on down this path, I'm going to exercise my market power and switch away, and, for the first time since 1979, I won't use an Apple product as my main computer. I may even have my tattoo removed.
My data is my life, and I won't keep it in a strongbox that someone else has the keys for."
"I've been an Apple user since 1979. I've owned dozens -- probably more than a hundred -- Macintoshes. When I worked in the private sector, I used to write purchase orders for about a quarter-million dollars' worth of Apple hardware every year. I've stuck with the machines over the years because the fit-and-finish of the OS and the generally kick-ass hardware made them the best choice for me. I've converted innumerable people to the Mac (most recently I got my grandmother's octogenarian boyfriend to pick up a Mac Mini, which he loves). Hell, I even bought half a dozen Newtons over the years...
The Trusted Computing people say that they intend on Trusted Computing being used to stop the unauthorized distribution of music, but none of them has ever refuted the Darknet paper, where several of Trusted Computing's inventors explain that Trusted Computing isn't fit to this purpose.
The point of Trusted Computing is to make it hard -- impossible, if you believe the snake-oil salesmen from the Trusted Computing world -- to open a document in a player other than the one that wrote it in the first place, unless the application vendor authorizes it. It's like a blender that will only chop the food that Cuisinart says you're allowed to chop. It's like a car that will only take the brand of gas that Ford will let you fill it with. It's like a web-site that you can only load in the browser that the author intended it to be seen in...
So that means that if Apple carries on down this path, I'm going to exercise my market power and switch away, and, for the first time since 1979, I won't use an Apple product as my main computer. I may even have my tattoo removed.
My data is my life, and I won't keep it in a strongbox that someone else has the keys for."
Missing digital music
The Wall Street Journal has a nice article today about why so many old music albums are not available in digital form.
"while most pop new releases are a click away, some artists' "back catalogs" are frustrating patchworks, with albums unavailable because of rights issues, because clearing those rights isn't a priority for a record label, or maybe just because they're way down on an awfully long list. Think of them as the digital-music revolution's missing in action."
Part of the problem is that when the music was produced there was no digital rights smallprint in the contracts. There are also publishing rights issues and the music labels own policies on releasing back catalogue material (it's low priority).
Yet when this is all sorted out, these WSJ journalists seem to think that the labels back catalogue is "found money", just as CDs were in their early days, as people bought CD versions of their favorite albums.
"while most pop new releases are a click away, some artists' "back catalogs" are frustrating patchworks, with albums unavailable because of rights issues, because clearing those rights isn't a priority for a record label, or maybe just because they're way down on an awfully long list. Think of them as the digital-music revolution's missing in action."
Part of the problem is that when the music was produced there was no digital rights smallprint in the contracts. There are also publishing rights issues and the music labels own policies on releasing back catalogue material (it's low priority).
Yet when this is all sorted out, these WSJ journalists seem to think that the labels back catalogue is "found money", just as CDs were in their early days, as people bought CD versions of their favorite albums.
Disney fingerprints
Ed Felten alerts me to the fact that Disney World are fingerprinting customers, almost certainly to effect price discrimination.
" Disney sells multi-day tickets at a discount. They don’t want people to buy (say) a ten-day ticket, use it for two days, and then resell the ticket to somebody else. Disney makes about $200 more by selling five separate two-day tickets than by selling a single ten-day ticket. To stop this, they fingerprint the users of such tickets and verify that the fingerprint associated with a ticket doesn’t change from day to day."
" Disney sells multi-day tickets at a discount. They don’t want people to buy (say) a ten-day ticket, use it for two days, and then resell the ticket to somebody else. Disney makes about $200 more by selling five separate two-day tickets than by selling a single ten-day ticket. To stop this, they fingerprint the users of such tickets and verify that the fingerprint associated with a ticket doesn’t change from day to day."
WIPO development meeting fails
The third WIPO Development Agenda meeting has ended without agreement. There are concerns noted here by the EFF that the US and Japan have undermined a useful process by insisting that the work of the committee tasked with "providing the WIPO General Assembly with specific recommendations for reform" should be transferred to another "moribund advisory committee called the Permanent Committee for Cooperation Related to Intellectual Property (PCIPD)."
Government v LSE continues
The UK government have released an 11 page response to the LSE's critical report on their ID card scheme. It says the LSE report
uses inaccurate assumptions producing inflated cost estimates
and that the LSE's proposed alternative scheme is
insecure
puts personal information at risk
is not costed
is likely to be expensive
would not gain public trust
facilitates identity theft and fraud
has a high risk of failure
is based on insufficient stakeholder consultation
and misrepresents the government's prosed scheme
No pulling of punches there then. They've decided the best form of defence is attack.
Professor Ian Angell of the LSE says:
"We are encouraged that the government has responded to the LSE report. This is an important step forward in nurturing a meaningful debate.
We have not been given an opportunity to scrutinise the government's document. We will comment substantively when we have had time to digest the points made.
We are concerned, however, that the Home Office document contains material errors and appears to contain false assumptions about the alternative blueprint proposed. We will clarify and correct these aspects in our response."
Expect this one to run and run.
uses inaccurate assumptions producing inflated cost estimates
and that the LSE's proposed alternative scheme is
insecure
puts personal information at risk
is not costed
is likely to be expensive
would not gain public trust
facilitates identity theft and fraud
has a high risk of failure
is based on insufficient stakeholder consultation
and misrepresents the government's prosed scheme
No pulling of punches there then. They've decided the best form of defence is attack.
Professor Ian Angell of the LSE says:
"We are encouraged that the government has responded to the LSE report. This is an important step forward in nurturing a meaningful debate.
We have not been given an opportunity to scrutinise the government's document. We will comment substantively when we have had time to digest the points made.
We are concerned, however, that the Home Office document contains material errors and appears to contain false assumptions about the alternative blueprint proposed. We will clarify and correct these aspects in our response."
Expect this one to run and run.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Librarian skills
Jenny Levine's been thinking about the 20 Technology Skills Every Educator Should Have and believes librarians should be equally steeped in these crafts.
" 1. Word Processing Skills
2. Spreadsheets Skills
3. Database Skills
4. Electronic Presentation Skills
5. Web Navigation Skills
6. Web Site Design Skills
7. E-Mail Management Skills
8. Digital Cameras
9. Computer Network Knowledge Applicable to your School System
10. File Management & Windows Explorer Skills
11. Downloading Software From the Web (Knowledge including eBooks)
12. Installing Computer Software onto a Computer System
13. WebCT or Blackboard Teaching Skills
14. Videoconferencing skills
15. Computer-Related Storage Devices (Knowledge: disks, CDs, USB drives, zip disks, DVDs, etc.)
16. Scanner Knowledge
17. Knowledge of PDAs
18. Deep Web Knowledge
19. Educational Copyright Knowledge
20. Computer Security Knowledge
It's a pretty good list, and it becomes useful for us if we substitute the word "librarian" for "educator" throughout, even for items like #13 about WebCT and Blackboard because you have to understand the distance learning you'll be supporting more and more in the future (speaking from a public librarian perspective)."
I agree item 13. should be on the librarian list but I'd prefer the term "virtual learning environments (or VLEs)" instead of "WebCT or Blackboard", which, after all are only proprietary systems. We've been working with evolving VLEs on an industrial scale for about 10 years at the Open University in the UK and we don't use either WebCT or Blackboard.
Blackboard also felt it necessary to get a restraining order preventing students revealing security vunerablilities in their systems in April 2003, in order to prevent "irreparable injury to Blackboard" and their intellectual property rights. The court granted the injunction, so the company had a presentable legal case. There is a legimate question, however, about the degree of control that companies who build digital education systems should exercise over the information that flows through or about those systems.
My own preference is for VLEs to be open, modular, flexible and interoperable.
" 1. Word Processing Skills
2. Spreadsheets Skills
3. Database Skills
4. Electronic Presentation Skills
5. Web Navigation Skills
6. Web Site Design Skills
7. E-Mail Management Skills
8. Digital Cameras
9. Computer Network Knowledge Applicable to your School System
10. File Management & Windows Explorer Skills
11. Downloading Software From the Web (Knowledge including eBooks)
12. Installing Computer Software onto a Computer System
13. WebCT or Blackboard Teaching Skills
14. Videoconferencing skills
15. Computer-Related Storage Devices (Knowledge: disks, CDs, USB drives, zip disks, DVDs, etc.)
16. Scanner Knowledge
17. Knowledge of PDAs
18. Deep Web Knowledge
19. Educational Copyright Knowledge
20. Computer Security Knowledge
It's a pretty good list, and it becomes useful for us if we substitute the word "librarian" for "educator" throughout, even for items like #13 about WebCT and Blackboard because you have to understand the distance learning you'll be supporting more and more in the future (speaking from a public librarian perspective)."
I agree item 13. should be on the librarian list but I'd prefer the term "virtual learning environments (or VLEs)" instead of "WebCT or Blackboard", which, after all are only proprietary systems. We've been working with evolving VLEs on an industrial scale for about 10 years at the Open University in the UK and we don't use either WebCT or Blackboard.
Blackboard also felt it necessary to get a restraining order preventing students revealing security vunerablilities in their systems in April 2003, in order to prevent "irreparable injury to Blackboard" and their intellectual property rights. The court granted the injunction, so the company had a presentable legal case. There is a legimate question, however, about the degree of control that companies who build digital education systems should exercise over the information that flows through or about those systems.
My own preference is for VLEs to be open, modular, flexible and interoperable.
ID card bill finishes committee stage
From Spyblog: The controversial Identity Cards Bill completed its House of Commons Committee Stage yesterday, just before Parliament broke for the 80 day Summer Recess until October 6th.
UK software patent case
The England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) heard a software patent dispute in March this year. The decision of the deputy judge who presided over the case, Peter Prescott QC, is now available, CFPH LLC, Patent Applications by [2005] EWHC 1589 (Pat) (21 July 2005).
The whole debate over software patents which eventually got rejected recently again by the EU Parliament got horribly hung up on the meaning of the concept of a "technical effect" and what exactly constitutes an "invention." Mr Prescott, to his credit, admits explicitly that this gives the courts a problem:
"What is an 'invention' (in the sense I am now concerned with) is a topic bedevilled by verbal formulae – and by the sweeping of problems under the carpet. So, before I go any further I want to bring some of those problems out into the light of day.
But first: does it really matter? Is it merely a sterile argument about the meaning of words? To which I answer that whoever controls the meaning of 'invention' controls what can be patented and hence an important aspect of industrial policy. There can be but one justification for having a patent system, and that is that it is good for the people of the country. If the patenting of certain things does more harm than good, it matters. Patents that are wrongly granted can be very expensive to challenge and may deter small and medium enterprises.
'Technical'
At the risk of some inaccuracy, patents are supposed to be granted for non-obvious advances in technology. I said "at the risk of some inaccuracy". We sense that we know 'technology' when we see it. And no doubt that is correct, most of the time.
But it is not correct all of the time. Therein lies the delusion. You can prove that for yourself by trying to find a definition of 'technology' that everybody can agree on. The more you try, the more you will discover what a horribly imprecise concept it is. (Would it cover an astro-navigation chart?[4] Naval tactics?[5] Double-entry bookkeeping? The phonetic alphabet?[6]) Many have tried to frame an acceptable definition, but to the best of my knowledge none have succeeded[7]. It is like the equally vexing question, "What is Art?". The hard truth is this: concepts of that sort have no existence, and words of that sort have no meaning, except by human convention; but human beings are hopelessly in disagreement at the margin. And it is, precisely, at the margin of uncertainty that cases come up for decision.
The same goes for the cognate word 'technical'. A number of surveys in the context of patenting have shown that, not only is there no agreement about the meaning of the word, but that most informed respondents agree that "trying to define the words 'technical' or 'technology' is a dead-end" [8]. That 'technical' is vague has implicitly been recognised in our courts too. For example, in Gale's Application [1991] RPC 305, 328 Nicholls LJ said that Mr Gale's algorithm did not solve a 'technical' problem lying within the computer. He continued:
I confess to having difficulty in identifying clearly the boundary line between what is and what is not a technical problem for this purpose. That, at least to some extent, may well be no more than a reflection of my lack of expertise in this field.
But for my part I think Nicholls LJ was too modest. I believe his difficulty arose, not through lack of expertise, but because of the inherent vagueness of the concept itself. In Fujitsu Limited's Application [1997] EWCA Civ 1174, [1997] RPC 608 Aldous LJ said:
I, like Nicholls LJ, have difficulty in identifying clearly the boundary line between what is and what is not a technical contribution.
Likewise the German Federal Court of Justice in XZB 15/98,"Sprachanalyseeinrichtung", 11 May 2000.
I mention this near the outset of this judgment because it is important. If you look at the case law on the subject, both here and in Munich, you will find many references to "technical contribution", "technical result", and so on, being touchstones by which these cases are decided. The use of the word 'technical' as a short-hand expression in order to identify patentable subject-matter is often convenient. But it should be remembered that it was not used by the framers of the Patents Act 1977 or the European Patent Convention when they wanted to tell us what is or is not an 'invention'. In any case the word 'technical' is not a solution. It is merely a restatement of the problem in different and more imprecise language. I am not claiming that it is wrong to decide cases with reference to the word 'technical'. It happens all the time. What I am saying is that it is not a panacea. It is a useful servant but a dangerous master."
Having worked in a Technology Faculty for the past ten years or so, it will be no surprise to know that academic colleagues have wrestled with the notion of a definitive definition of the word "technology" for many generations. It's imperfect and will be of little use to Mr Prescott and judicial colleagues but a working definition we sometimes use with our students is:
"Technology is the application of scientific and other knowledge to practical tasks by organisations that involve people and machines."
No. It doesn't transfer well to the legal context.
The judge decided, btw, that the network betting software under consideration did not qualify as patentable, confirming the original Patent Office ruling.
The whole debate over software patents which eventually got rejected recently again by the EU Parliament got horribly hung up on the meaning of the concept of a "technical effect" and what exactly constitutes an "invention." Mr Prescott, to his credit, admits explicitly that this gives the courts a problem:
"What is an 'invention' (in the sense I am now concerned with) is a topic bedevilled by verbal formulae – and by the sweeping of problems under the carpet. So, before I go any further I want to bring some of those problems out into the light of day.
But first: does it really matter? Is it merely a sterile argument about the meaning of words? To which I answer that whoever controls the meaning of 'invention' controls what can be patented and hence an important aspect of industrial policy. There can be but one justification for having a patent system, and that is that it is good for the people of the country. If the patenting of certain things does more harm than good, it matters. Patents that are wrongly granted can be very expensive to challenge and may deter small and medium enterprises.
'Technical'
At the risk of some inaccuracy, patents are supposed to be granted for non-obvious advances in technology. I said "at the risk of some inaccuracy". We sense that we know 'technology' when we see it. And no doubt that is correct, most of the time.
But it is not correct all of the time. Therein lies the delusion. You can prove that for yourself by trying to find a definition of 'technology' that everybody can agree on. The more you try, the more you will discover what a horribly imprecise concept it is. (Would it cover an astro-navigation chart?[4] Naval tactics?[5] Double-entry bookkeeping? The phonetic alphabet?[6]) Many have tried to frame an acceptable definition, but to the best of my knowledge none have succeeded[7]. It is like the equally vexing question, "What is Art?". The hard truth is this: concepts of that sort have no existence, and words of that sort have no meaning, except by human convention; but human beings are hopelessly in disagreement at the margin. And it is, precisely, at the margin of uncertainty that cases come up for decision.
The same goes for the cognate word 'technical'. A number of surveys in the context of patenting have shown that, not only is there no agreement about the meaning of the word, but that most informed respondents agree that "trying to define the words 'technical' or 'technology' is a dead-end" [8]. That 'technical' is vague has implicitly been recognised in our courts too. For example, in Gale's Application [1991] RPC 305, 328 Nicholls LJ said that Mr Gale's algorithm did not solve a 'technical' problem lying within the computer. He continued:
I confess to having difficulty in identifying clearly the boundary line between what is and what is not a technical problem for this purpose. That, at least to some extent, may well be no more than a reflection of my lack of expertise in this field.
But for my part I think Nicholls LJ was too modest. I believe his difficulty arose, not through lack of expertise, but because of the inherent vagueness of the concept itself. In Fujitsu Limited's Application [1997] EWCA Civ 1174, [1997] RPC 608 Aldous LJ said:
I, like Nicholls LJ, have difficulty in identifying clearly the boundary line between what is and what is not a technical contribution.
Likewise the German Federal Court of Justice in XZB 15/98,"Sprachanalyseeinrichtung", 11 May 2000.
I mention this near the outset of this judgment because it is important. If you look at the case law on the subject, both here and in Munich, you will find many references to "technical contribution", "technical result", and so on, being touchstones by which these cases are decided. The use of the word 'technical' as a short-hand expression in order to identify patentable subject-matter is often convenient. But it should be remembered that it was not used by the framers of the Patents Act 1977 or the European Patent Convention when they wanted to tell us what is or is not an 'invention'. In any case the word 'technical' is not a solution. It is merely a restatement of the problem in different and more imprecise language. I am not claiming that it is wrong to decide cases with reference to the word 'technical'. It happens all the time. What I am saying is that it is not a panacea. It is a useful servant but a dangerous master."
Having worked in a Technology Faculty for the past ten years or so, it will be no surprise to know that academic colleagues have wrestled with the notion of a definitive definition of the word "technology" for many generations. It's imperfect and will be of little use to Mr Prescott and judicial colleagues but a working definition we sometimes use with our students is:
"Technology is the application of scientific and other knowledge to practical tasks by organisations that involve people and machines."
No. It doesn't transfer well to the legal context.
The judge decided, btw, that the network betting software under consideration did not qualify as patentable, confirming the original Patent Office ruling.
Freedom of expression dispute
Kimbrew McLeod is has written to Leo Stoller, a man who claims to own the words "stealth," "hoax" and "chutzpah" amongst others and derives a healthy income threatening to sue organisations using these words without his permission. If you scroll down the list of phrases he claims to own, however, you'll come to one, "freedom of expression", for which McLeod was awarded a trademark, in 1998.
McLeod applied for the trademark as prank to test the United States Patent and Trademark Office system - would he be able to get such a trademark in a country where freedom of expression was protected by the constitution. Well it seems he would, could and did. His FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION mark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 6, 1998, and it bears the registration number 2,127,381.
Doubleday (Random House) also published a wonderful book by McLeod earlier this year called "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity"
So once Kimbrew McLeod found out Leo Stoller was claiming ownership of his famous trademarked phrase, he wasn't going to pass up on the opportunity to generate some publicity over it. It's worth saying that Stoller is not the only one making a tidy sum from the kind of activity he's engaged in. There's a guy called Ashleigh Brilliant (I kid you not) in California who claims he owns about 7500 aphorisms and makes a living threatening to sue companies (largely publishing and media companies I believe) who unknowingly step on his "property." Publishing houses all too familiar with the costs of defending lawsuits rightly calculate it will usually work out cheaper just to pay royalites or damages. Nice work if you can get it. Ooops. I hope that doesn't belong to Brilliant or Stoller, though George and Ira Gershwin would, of course have a stronger claim (or possibly even Fred Astaire's family, as I think he was the first to record the song).
McLeod applied for the trademark as prank to test the United States Patent and Trademark Office system - would he be able to get such a trademark in a country where freedom of expression was protected by the constitution. Well it seems he would, could and did. His FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION mark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 6, 1998, and it bears the registration number 2,127,381.
Doubleday (Random House) also published a wonderful book by McLeod earlier this year called "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity"
So once Kimbrew McLeod found out Leo Stoller was claiming ownership of his famous trademarked phrase, he wasn't going to pass up on the opportunity to generate some publicity over it. It's worth saying that Stoller is not the only one making a tidy sum from the kind of activity he's engaged in. There's a guy called Ashleigh Brilliant (I kid you not) in California who claims he owns about 7500 aphorisms and makes a living threatening to sue companies (largely publishing and media companies I believe) who unknowingly step on his "property." Publishing houses all too familiar with the costs of defending lawsuits rightly calculate it will usually work out cheaper just to pay royalites or damages. Nice work if you can get it. Ooops. I hope that doesn't belong to Brilliant or Stoller, though George and Ira Gershwin would, of course have a stronger claim (or possibly even Fred Astaire's family, as I think he was the first to record the song).
Thursday, July 21, 2005
New Open Access Copyright Journal
Larry Lessig and Michael Geist have launched a new open access journal on copyright. Good idea. From the website:
Copyright, a new peer-reviewed journal led by a renowned editorial team, seeks papers on all aspects of copyright in the Internet age. The journal features an extremely rapid review and publication time while maintaining rigorous standards on the quality of work. Every effort will be made to have the initial reviewers' decision within two weeks of submission. The journal focuses on detailed research and case studies vetted by peer-review; opinion pieces and shorter communications are also invited and will be accepted at the editors' discression.
Copyright is structured to be a new type of journal, not just a place to publish ideas but a locus to generate them--vital in an area of academic interest largely composed of subdisciplines of other fields. For instance, while the majority of articles will still be published in the traditional fashion, a novel, collaborative approach has been implemented as well. Potential authors can simply begin contributing to such an article while the system tracks the individuals' contributions. The article is then submitted through the normal review process and, if accepted, authorship is assigned based on the tracked contributions as the last step of the review process.
Copyright is particularly interested in publishing interdisciplinary works and works not normally considered within the purview of such a journal, such as those covering social and political impact of copyright. The journal also encourages lay participation through community projects.
Copyright seeks articles on all topics related to copyright, including:
Digital Rights Management
Quantitative studies of the effects of legislation
Scholarly communication and Open Access
Peer-to-peer networks
International copyright
Collaborative authorship
Blogs and other new media
Collaborative filtering
Copyright in developing nations
Social implications of copyright
This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Indeed, high-quality papers relating to any aspect of copyright are welcome.
Copyright, a new peer-reviewed journal led by a renowned editorial team, seeks papers on all aspects of copyright in the Internet age. The journal features an extremely rapid review and publication time while maintaining rigorous standards on the quality of work. Every effort will be made to have the initial reviewers' decision within two weeks of submission. The journal focuses on detailed research and case studies vetted by peer-review; opinion pieces and shorter communications are also invited and will be accepted at the editors' discression.
Copyright is structured to be a new type of journal, not just a place to publish ideas but a locus to generate them--vital in an area of academic interest largely composed of subdisciplines of other fields. For instance, while the majority of articles will still be published in the traditional fashion, a novel, collaborative approach has been implemented as well. Potential authors can simply begin contributing to such an article while the system tracks the individuals' contributions. The article is then submitted through the normal review process and, if accepted, authorship is assigned based on the tracked contributions as the last step of the review process.
Copyright is particularly interested in publishing interdisciplinary works and works not normally considered within the purview of such a journal, such as those covering social and political impact of copyright. The journal also encourages lay participation through community projects.
Copyright seeks articles on all topics related to copyright, including:
Digital Rights Management
Quantitative studies of the effects of legislation
Scholarly communication and Open Access
Peer-to-peer networks
International copyright
Collaborative authorship
Blogs and other new media
Collaborative filtering
Copyright in developing nations
Social implications of copyright
This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Indeed, high-quality papers relating to any aspect of copyright are welcome.
The Quakers on ID cards
William Heath has a quote from Quaker Parliamentary Liaison Secretary, Michael Bartlett, on ID cards:
"..some Quakers feel the scale of suspicion in current proposals amounts to a denial of integrity comparable to the former insistence on swearing oaths. A requirement to produce biometric evidence of identity, in such everyday transactions as visiting a GP, symbolises a breakdown of trust unprecedented in peacetime and unparalleled in Common Law jurisdictions...At the heart of a Quaker attitude to governance is the understanding that it is unhealthy for too much power to be concentrated in any one place. A decision to require compulsory holding of identity cards goes to the nub of democratic politics: the relationship between the citizen, the community and the state. Such a fundamental shift in this balance calls for a maturity of debate that cannot be conducted in the sound bites of studio phone ins and requires the type of reasoned public consultation that cannot take place in a general election campaign."
I agree with Mr Bartlett that the public debate lacks maturity. I doubt whether it will progress to the depth he would wish on the issues of liberty he focuses on, however, when we can't even get past canards and personal insults on the technology aspects alone.
"..some Quakers feel the scale of suspicion in current proposals amounts to a denial of integrity comparable to the former insistence on swearing oaths. A requirement to produce biometric evidence of identity, in such everyday transactions as visiting a GP, symbolises a breakdown of trust unprecedented in peacetime and unparalleled in Common Law jurisdictions...At the heart of a Quaker attitude to governance is the understanding that it is unhealthy for too much power to be concentrated in any one place. A decision to require compulsory holding of identity cards goes to the nub of democratic politics: the relationship between the citizen, the community and the state. Such a fundamental shift in this balance calls for a maturity of debate that cannot be conducted in the sound bites of studio phone ins and requires the type of reasoned public consultation that cannot take place in a general election campaign."
I agree with Mr Bartlett that the public debate lacks maturity. I doubt whether it will progress to the depth he would wish on the issues of liberty he focuses on, however, when we can't even get past canards and personal insults on the technology aspects alone.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
The firefight with the LSE will continue
William Heath has it on good authority that the UK government's firefight with the LSE over ID cards will continue.
New anti terror law for UK
Another anti terrorism law will be passed in the UK in the Autumn, following the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke's meeting with the opposition home affairs spokesmen, Mark Oaten and David Davis. Having successfully pushed through data retention plans at the EU council of ministers meeting, Mr Clarke is maintaining his commitment to resist rushing through new anti-terror laws in the wake of the London bombings. This legislation was already in the pipeline before the London atrocities and this new agreement with the opposition parties merely enables it to be processed more quickly through parliament than Mr Clarke originally envisaged.
D-lib magazine 10 years old
What Peter Suber describes as one of the most successful and influential OA journals covering digital-library issues, the 10th anniversary edition of D-Lib Magazine is now online. Particularly recommended is Clifford Lynch's article
Where Do We Go From Here? The Next Decade for Digital Libraries The language is a little heavy but the sentiment familiar - focus on what you want your information system to do, not on what the invogue technology can currently do:
"The next decade for digital libraries may well be characterized most profoundly by the transition from technologies and prototypes to the ubiquitous, immersive, and pervasive deployment of digital library technologies and services in the broader information and information technology landscape."
Where Do We Go From Here? The Next Decade for Digital Libraries The language is a little heavy but the sentiment familiar - focus on what you want your information system to do, not on what the invogue technology can currently do:
"The next decade for digital libraries may well be characterized most profoundly by the transition from technologies and prototypes to the ubiquitous, immersive, and pervasive deployment of digital library technologies and services in the broader information and information technology landscape."
Get on the damn elevator!
Melanie Scarborough at the Cato Institute recently released an interesting paper, called The Security Pretext, the thesis of which can be partly summed up in past and likely future presidential candidate, Senator John McCain's words, "Get on the damn elevator. Fly on the damn plane! Calculate the odds of being harmed by a terrorist! It's still about as likely as being swept out to sea by a tidal wave. Suck it up for crying out loud. You're almost certainly going to be ok. And in the unlikely event that you're not, do you really want to spend your last days cowering behind plastic sheets and duct tape? That's not a life worth living is it?"
Scarborough argues that "national security" is being used as an excuse to justify otherwise unsustainable measures and spending "on everything from peanut subsidies to steel protectionism...
For freedom to prevail in the age of terrorism, three things are essential. First, government officials must take a sober look at the potential risk and recognize that there is no reason to panic and act rashly.
Second, Congress must stop federal police agencies from acting arbitrarily. Before imposing costly and restrictive security measures that inconvenience thousands of people, police agencies ought to be required to produce cost-benefit analyses.
Third, government officials must demonstrate courage rather than give in to their fears. Radical Islamic terrorists are not the first enemy that America has faced."
She's being a little unfair on the policing agencies. You can't blame them (or the peanut bureaucrats!) for raising their sails to take advantage of prevailing political winds. I believe it's a function what economists call public goods theory (everyone acts in their own best interests). It's up to each of us as individuals, as well as the politicians and the hard working public servants in these agencies to maintain a sense of perspective and, to paraphrase Senator McCain, get on the damn plane, preferably without having to wait for granny to have her shoes searched.
Scarborough argues that "national security" is being used as an excuse to justify otherwise unsustainable measures and spending "on everything from peanut subsidies to steel protectionism...
For freedom to prevail in the age of terrorism, three things are essential. First, government officials must take a sober look at the potential risk and recognize that there is no reason to panic and act rashly.
Second, Congress must stop federal police agencies from acting arbitrarily. Before imposing costly and restrictive security measures that inconvenience thousands of people, police agencies ought to be required to produce cost-benefit analyses.
Third, government officials must demonstrate courage rather than give in to their fears. Radical Islamic terrorists are not the first enemy that America has faced."
She's being a little unfair on the policing agencies. You can't blame them (or the peanut bureaucrats!) for raising their sails to take advantage of prevailing political winds. I believe it's a function what economists call public goods theory (everyone acts in their own best interests). It's up to each of us as individuals, as well as the politicians and the hard working public servants in these agencies to maintain a sense of perspective and, to paraphrase Senator McCain, get on the damn plane, preferably without having to wait for granny to have her shoes searched.
UK Governmment press ahead with child database
The UK government have decided to go ahead with plans for an electronic database to track every child in the country in response to the appalling child murder cases of recent years. (They actually have little choice, having passed the Children Act last year, which provides the legal basis for it).
The House of Commons Education and Skills committee produced their response to the government's plans in March this year. The government released their response to the committee's response last month.
From the summary of the committee's report:
"The government needs to be commended at the outset for embarking on such an ambitious and wide-ranging programme of root-and-branch reform.
We have been impressed by the commitment, dedication and enthusiasm demonstrated by those responsible for delivering the reforms at the front line...
Some specific aspects of the reforms give us cause for concern. The government has proposed the establishment of a network of 'child indexes' (or databases) containing basic details on all children in England, to aid communication between professionals. These proposals are not currently well-grounded in research evidence. Crucial decisions to go ahead in principle were taken before it could be demonstrated that the indexes would be worthwhile and that practical problems with security and with keeping information up to date could be overcome. We welcome reassurances given to us by the Minister for Children, Young People and Families that she could proceed slowly and would not enter into commissioning arrangements for child indexes lightly, and that more research will be undertaken before going ahead."
It goes on to say that resourcing of the proposals will be a challenge and that the government notion that resources should be found through local savings in existing budgets are unrealistic.
The government's response effectively rejects the committee's more serious criticisms and welcomes their helpful advice, particularly suggestions to do more research before proceeding too quickly.
I have a couple of questions.
Firstly why didn't the committee report their views before the 2004 Children Act was passed? In relation to the information systems that the heart of the proposals the committee's questions about security and integrity of the information are pretty fundamental.
Secondly, when the government mentions doing more research before proceeding, does this mean real independent research or just commissioning consultants to tell them what they are doing is a good idea? This is neither a criticism of the government nor of the consultants. It is a well known tenet of modern management that you have to pay your own employees whether you listen to them or not. If, however, you pay external consultants a lot of money to conduct a study, then that money is wasted if you don't listen to their opinion (the fact that this is a sunk cost, the spending of which should be irrelevant to the decision making, is always overlooked). Therefore, in commissioning consultants it is politically expedient to ensure that they have clear objectives right from the start, including a knowledge of what the commissioner would wish the commissioning organisation to hear on the subject.
The House of Commons Education and Skills committee produced their response to the government's plans in March this year. The government released their response to the committee's response last month.
From the summary of the committee's report:
"The government needs to be commended at the outset for embarking on such an ambitious and wide-ranging programme of root-and-branch reform.
We have been impressed by the commitment, dedication and enthusiasm demonstrated by those responsible for delivering the reforms at the front line...
Some specific aspects of the reforms give us cause for concern. The government has proposed the establishment of a network of 'child indexes' (or databases) containing basic details on all children in England, to aid communication between professionals. These proposals are not currently well-grounded in research evidence. Crucial decisions to go ahead in principle were taken before it could be demonstrated that the indexes would be worthwhile and that practical problems with security and with keeping information up to date could be overcome. We welcome reassurances given to us by the Minister for Children, Young People and Families that she could proceed slowly and would not enter into commissioning arrangements for child indexes lightly, and that more research will be undertaken before going ahead."
It goes on to say that resourcing of the proposals will be a challenge and that the government notion that resources should be found through local savings in existing budgets are unrealistic.
The government's response effectively rejects the committee's more serious criticisms and welcomes their helpful advice, particularly suggestions to do more research before proceeding too quickly.
I have a couple of questions.
Firstly why didn't the committee report their views before the 2004 Children Act was passed? In relation to the information systems that the heart of the proposals the committee's questions about security and integrity of the information are pretty fundamental.
Secondly, when the government mentions doing more research before proceeding, does this mean real independent research or just commissioning consultants to tell them what they are doing is a good idea? This is neither a criticism of the government nor of the consultants. It is a well known tenet of modern management that you have to pay your own employees whether you listen to them or not. If, however, you pay external consultants a lot of money to conduct a study, then that money is wasted if you don't listen to their opinion (the fact that this is a sunk cost, the spending of which should be irrelevant to the decision making, is always overlooked). Therefore, in commissioning consultants it is politically expedient to ensure that they have clear objectives right from the start, including a knowledge of what the commissioner would wish the commissioning organisation to hear on the subject.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Harry Potter and the e-pirates
Apparently the latest Harry Potter novel, which sold nearly 7 million copies in the first day, has already been illegally copied and distributed in electronic form.
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper
A court in Austalia has held a website owner and his hosting ISP liable for facilitating copyright infringement. Stephen Cooper ran the "MP3s4FREE" website. It's not particularly surprising that Mr Cooper was held liable for copyright infringement but he has also been held liable for linking to other websites containing infringing material.
The court made copiuous reference to a much criticised US court decision, Universal City Studios, Inc v Reimerdes, where the defendant editor of the Hacker 2600 magazine, despite relying on a first amendment defence, was also held liable for linking (in that case to websites containing the DMCA-outlawed DeCSS code). Although Judge Kaplan was criticised over the DeCSS linking decision my most enduring memory of that judgement was his entertaining expose of the publicity seeking tactics of both sides in the case.
Thanks to Yiango Yiangoullis for providing a link to the Cooper decision.
The court made copiuous reference to a much criticised US court decision, Universal City Studios, Inc v Reimerdes, where the defendant editor of the Hacker 2600 magazine, despite relying on a first amendment defence, was also held liable for linking (in that case to websites containing the DMCA-outlawed DeCSS code). Although Judge Kaplan was criticised over the DeCSS linking decision my most enduring memory of that judgement was his entertaining expose of the publicity seeking tactics of both sides in the case.
Thanks to Yiango Yiangoullis for providing a link to the Cooper decision.
William Hill v BHB
A VUNet report on Friday last suggests that William Hill's victory in its long running dispute with the British Horseracing Board (BHB) means that publicly available information cannot be locked away in commercial databases to the extent that critics of the EU database directive have often argued.
Article 7(1) of the directive says "Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database."
The case had been referred back to the UK Court of Appeal by the European Court of Justice, which has said that in relation to the BHB database (italics mine),
"The resources used to draw up a list of horses in a race and to carry out checks in that connection do not constitute investment in the obtaining and verification of the contents of the database in which that list appears."
The UK Appeal Court, though clearly sympathetic to the BHB cause, conclude that clinches the case for William Hill. It will be interesting to see how this affects future database disputes.
Article 7(1) of the directive says "Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database."
The case had been referred back to the UK Court of Appeal by the European Court of Justice, which has said that in relation to the BHB database (italics mine),
"The resources used to draw up a list of horses in a race and to carry out checks in that connection do not constitute investment in the obtaining and verification of the contents of the database in which that list appears."
The UK Appeal Court, though clearly sympathetic to the BHB cause, conclude that clinches the case for William Hill. It will be interesting to see how this affects future database disputes.
Script-ed
The latest edition of Edinburgh Univeristy's AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law Script-ed journal is now available. As usual it is recommended reading. Particularly recommended are
the special feature on the FIGARO International Workshop: “Intellectual Property Rights Issues of Digital Publishing - Presence and Perspectives”, which was held at Hamburg University in September 2003
a paper by Marko Berglund on The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Related to Genetic Resources and
Andrés Guadamuz González's paper on legal challenges to open source.
the special feature on the FIGARO International Workshop: “Intellectual Property Rights Issues of Digital Publishing - Presence and Perspectives”, which was held at Hamburg University in September 2003
a paper by Marko Berglund on The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Related to Genetic Resources and
Andrés Guadamuz González's paper on legal challenges to open source.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Debating IP
I attended a fascinating debate yesterday evening at the RSA between John Naughton, the Observer's Internet columnist and Ron Marchant Chief Executive of the UK's Patent Office.
There was a surprising amount of common ground between the two. Both agreed that the vast ecology now covered by intellectual property is in a stormy, dynamic, unstable state, as deployment of developing technologies like the Internet undermines the traditional business models of the "content" industries such as publishing, films, broadcasting and music. Both also agreed that we have to find a way to navigate towards a new equilibrium which avoids extremist demands of abolishing IP on one hand and making it disastrously draconian on the other.
There was one fundamental difference though. Ron Marchant sees the function of the intellectual property system as primarily one of generating wealth i.e. it must provide a way for creators and inventors to generate a monetary return from their creations and improve the economy of the UK or UK PLC, as he put it. He also spoke articulately about the need for balance in the system such that the public receives a return from the temporary IP monopolies granted to commerce, inventors and creators. But UK Plc bottom line was the main driver.
John Naughton has never subscribed to the notion that the only worthwhile things in life are those that can be allocated a monetary value and Ron Marchant agreed with him on this. John, however, felt that the IP system also had to recognise these values more explicitly and more powerfully because of the impact that the vast number of things the IP system now touches has on society.
As we move towards the big launch of the new Harry Potter novel tonight, I was wondering what both men would have thought of the Canadian injunction issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia but I never got the chance to ask the question. I'm fairly sure John would have agreed with Michael Geist. And I have a sneaking suspicion Ron Marchant would have too.
There was a surprising amount of common ground between the two. Both agreed that the vast ecology now covered by intellectual property is in a stormy, dynamic, unstable state, as deployment of developing technologies like the Internet undermines the traditional business models of the "content" industries such as publishing, films, broadcasting and music. Both also agreed that we have to find a way to navigate towards a new equilibrium which avoids extremist demands of abolishing IP on one hand and making it disastrously draconian on the other.
There was one fundamental difference though. Ron Marchant sees the function of the intellectual property system as primarily one of generating wealth i.e. it must provide a way for creators and inventors to generate a monetary return from their creations and improve the economy of the UK or UK PLC, as he put it. He also spoke articulately about the need for balance in the system such that the public receives a return from the temporary IP monopolies granted to commerce, inventors and creators. But UK Plc bottom line was the main driver.
John Naughton has never subscribed to the notion that the only worthwhile things in life are those that can be allocated a monetary value and Ron Marchant agreed with him on this. John, however, felt that the IP system also had to recognise these values more explicitly and more powerfully because of the impact that the vast number of things the IP system now touches has on society.
As we move towards the big launch of the new Harry Potter novel tonight, I was wondering what both men would have thought of the Canadian injunction issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia but I never got the chance to ask the question. I'm fairly sure John would have agreed with Michael Geist. And I have a sneaking suspicion Ron Marchant would have too.
ID pledge
As of 11.44am GMT today, 9889 people have signed the NO2ID campaign pledge.
The Home Office now have a promotional video for ID cards. Don't bother downloading it - it's 15Mb for 5 minutes and the producers use a little artistic licence with the issues E.g. at one stage the voiceover says: "The exact process for getting an Identity Card has not yet been defined. Applying will be straightforward, and it is likely that making an application over the Internet would be the simplest method." I laughed at that point wondering how ordinary people were going to supply verifiable fingerprints and iris scans from the comfort of their own homes. Then I realised I had conflated applying and registering and assumed that they would happen at the registration centres. But the application will have to be completed and sent in first before an invitation to attend a registration centre comes.
The video also suggests the scheme will have just 3 components
• Identity Register
• ID cards
• Verification Service
Not exactly - it has to have:
• Decentralised robustly and securely networked identity registration centres, which people will have to physically visit to be registered
• ID cards
• Central database register which stores all the information
• Verification Service
• Millions of networked, handheld robust, secure, verification devices that are available to every police officer, bank clerk, doctors' surgery etc. etc. who needs it to verify people's ID cards as part of their jobs.
As far as ID card videos go I prefer this one. (A mere 2Mb and much more entertaining).
The Home Office now have a promotional video for ID cards. Don't bother downloading it - it's 15Mb for 5 minutes and the producers use a little artistic licence with the issues E.g. at one stage the voiceover says: "The exact process for getting an Identity Card has not yet been defined. Applying will be straightforward, and it is likely that making an application over the Internet would be the simplest method." I laughed at that point wondering how ordinary people were going to supply verifiable fingerprints and iris scans from the comfort of their own homes. Then I realised I had conflated applying and registering and assumed that they would happen at the registration centres. But the application will have to be completed and sent in first before an invitation to attend a registration centre comes.
The video also suggests the scheme will have just 3 components
• Identity Register
• ID cards
• Verification Service
Not exactly - it has to have:
• Decentralised robustly and securely networked identity registration centres, which people will have to physically visit to be registered
• ID cards
• Central database register which stores all the information
• Verification Service
• Millions of networked, handheld robust, secure, verification devices that are available to every police officer, bank clerk, doctors' surgery etc. etc. who needs it to verify people's ID cards as part of their jobs.
As far as ID card videos go I prefer this one. (A mere 2Mb and much more entertaining).
Thursday, July 14, 2005
EU Commission sue states on copyright directive
CoCo reports that the EU Commission have started legal proceedings against member states which have not implemented the 2001 copyright directive, dealing with protection of access control or anti-circumvention technologies.
UK push for EU wide ID cards
"The UK is using its Presidency of the Council of the European Union to push for the adoption of biometric ID cards and associated standards across the whole of the EU." So says John Lettice.
Statewatch have the documental proof.
As an Irishman I'm interested in the notion that I'll constitute a hole in Mr Clarke's new ID system:
"In addition to the pan-European push, the UK Government is putting pressure on Ireland over identity cards. Irish Justice minister Michael McDowell has gone on the record as opposing ID cards, saying that "I don't want to go down that road if I can avoid doing so", but this week he conceded that if the UK ID scheme goes ahead Ireland may have little choice. This latest 'Irish question' figures regularly in the UK Parliament's ID card debates because Irish citizens may currently travel and live within the UK without controls. If the arrangements don't change and UK citizens have compulsory ID cards, Irish citizens would therefore constitute a giant hole in the scheme."
I've been described as many things but ttbomk never before as a hole.
Statewatch have the documental proof.
As an Irishman I'm interested in the notion that I'll constitute a hole in Mr Clarke's new ID system:
"In addition to the pan-European push, the UK Government is putting pressure on Ireland over identity cards. Irish Justice minister Michael McDowell has gone on the record as opposing ID cards, saying that "I don't want to go down that road if I can avoid doing so", but this week he conceded that if the UK ID scheme goes ahead Ireland may have little choice. This latest 'Irish question' figures regularly in the UK Parliament's ID card debates because Irish citizens may currently travel and live within the UK without controls. If the arrangements don't change and UK citizens have compulsory ID cards, Irish citizens would therefore constitute a giant hole in the scheme."
I've been described as many things but ttbomk never before as a hole.
Coke threaten artist
The Coca Cola company are threatening to sue an artist in India over a billboard with a red coke background and empty vessels next to a dry water pump.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Patriot act to be made permanent
According to Declan the USA Patriot Act is about to be made permanent.
State TIA Martrix still in use
Florida, Ohio, Connecticut and Pennsylvania are still using the Matrix (Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange) despite the celebrations of privacy advocates when federal funding for the scheme ended earlier this year.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Execute Malware distributors ?
An economist at the University of Rochester, Steven Landsburg, has done a cost benefit analysis on the back of an envelope and reckons US society would get better value out of executing virus spreading vandals than murderers. He certainly knows how to self publicise - the NYT have picked up on the story.
Thanks to Richard Clayton at FIPR for the links.
Thanks to Richard Clayton at FIPR for the links.
Internet archive DMCA lawsuit
William Paltry has decided to break his own rules about not commenting on complaints or motions, as a result of a complaint "n the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Early, Follmer & Frailey, et al."
The basic story is that one side used the wonderful Internet Archive to get archived material of the other side's website. So far so good. The Internet Archive trawls the web collecting material from websites unless owners of those websites opt out e.g. by asking the Internet Archive folks directly or by putting an opt out piece of code on their webwite called robots.txt. Healthcare Advocates stuck the blocking code on their site on 8th July 2003. Apparently by sending repeated requests to the site, Harding et al's lawyers were still able to get the material archived from the site, turning up the information 112 times from 849 attempts. It's not clear if any of the pages they got post dated the implementation of the robot.txt file.
Healthcare Advocates are now therefore claiming that Harding et al have bypassed copy protection technologies, which is illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. To quote Paltry,
"It is alleged that the robots.txt denial text string is a technological circumvention measure and that defendant law firm circumvented it. This claim, in my opinion, is factually and legally wrong. Factually, at least from the complaint, it does not appear that the law firm "circumvented" anything, if by circumvent we mean devised a mousetrap to bypass the denial text string. Instead, it seems as if defendant kept banging on the URL until, for whatever reason, the denial failed to be recognized. This is like going down a row of houses and trying doors to see if they are open. If they aren't you move on until you find one that is. If it is open you walk in, but you certainly haven't circumvented an access control mechanism."
He also fails to see how the robot.txt file can be considered to meeting the legal definition of a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work"
I'm sure he's right that the case will be thrown out but this is just another indication of how far lawyers are prepared to go to exploit the letter of the law. After all the lawyers will be thinking, the file is controlling access to copyrighted material and the defendants apparently managed to get access to that material anyway, so they must have bypassed a technical access control mechanism in some way? So they've figured that it is worth arguing before a court as one of a string of complaints. Potentially good court room tactics but it depends on how the judge views it.
The basic story is that one side used the wonderful Internet Archive to get archived material of the other side's website. So far so good. The Internet Archive trawls the web collecting material from websites unless owners of those websites opt out e.g. by asking the Internet Archive folks directly or by putting an opt out piece of code on their webwite called robots.txt. Healthcare Advocates stuck the blocking code on their site on 8th July 2003. Apparently by sending repeated requests to the site, Harding et al's lawyers were still able to get the material archived from the site, turning up the information 112 times from 849 attempts. It's not clear if any of the pages they got post dated the implementation of the robot.txt file.
Healthcare Advocates are now therefore claiming that Harding et al have bypassed copy protection technologies, which is illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. To quote Paltry,
"It is alleged that the robots.txt denial text string is a technological circumvention measure and that defendant law firm circumvented it. This claim, in my opinion, is factually and legally wrong. Factually, at least from the complaint, it does not appear that the law firm "circumvented" anything, if by circumvent we mean devised a mousetrap to bypass the denial text string. Instead, it seems as if defendant kept banging on the URL until, for whatever reason, the denial failed to be recognized. This is like going down a row of houses and trying doors to see if they are open. If they aren't you move on until you find one that is. If it is open you walk in, but you certainly haven't circumvented an access control mechanism."
He also fails to see how the robot.txt file can be considered to meeting the legal definition of a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work"
I'm sure he's right that the case will be thrown out but this is just another indication of how far lawyers are prepared to go to exploit the letter of the law. After all the lawyers will be thinking, the file is controlling access to copyrighted material and the defendants apparently managed to get access to that material anyway, so they must have bypassed a technical access control mechanism in some way? So they've figured that it is worth arguing before a court as one of a string of complaints. Potentially good court room tactics but it depends on how the judge views it.
Harry Potter book out early in Canada
Canadian publishers of the Harry Potter books, Raincoast Books Ltd., have announced that a small number of the books have been sold ahead of the release date on Thursday. The company has got a court injunction banning the buyers from disclosing the details of the plot and ordering them to return the books. The case went to Supreme Court of British Columbia on Saturday July 9th.
BBC criticised over Beethovan downloads
The BBC have been criticised by classical music labels over their recent experiment offering free MP3 versions of Beethoven's symphonies for downloading. Apparently over a million people took advantage of the offer.
One music executive said: "I think there is a question of whether a publicly funded broadcaster should be doing this and there is the obvious issue that it is devaluing the perceived value of music. You are also leading the public to think that it is fine to download and own these files for nothing."
Another said: "We have to pay premium prices to record big orchestras and pay full union rates and we have to pass those costs on to the consumer. If the BBC is going to offer recordings for free, that is going to be a major problem."
Let's see now. I believe Beethovan died in 1827, which means even if his work was protected by copyright, that copyright would have expired by now. So nobody owns his music. It is in the public domain. So whilst there may indeed be a question about whether a public broadcaster should be providing access to wonderful music from the public domain, the answer is a fairly simple yes imho.
In response to the second music executive, I'm reminded of a quote from Robert Heinlein's Life-Line:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."
It's a tough time to be in the music business with the changes wrought by the evolution of digital technologies but we do have to maintain a sense of proportion. The classical labels provide a worthy service commissioning and selling recordings of classical music in the public domain, which would not otherwise be so widely available. Although the music is in the public domain it is reasonable that these companies should be able to make a profit for the service they provide.
The technology, however, now opens up the possibility of creating a comprehensive library of that music on the Internet. It would arguably be anti-competitive and unreasonable to block the creation of such a library to protect the profits of the current incumbents in the classical music market. There will still be a market for classical music. The technology does not threaten music production. It threatens existing music production companies, unless they adapt their businesses to the new environment. And in response to the oft quoted "you can't compete with free", anyone for bottled water? Or as Tim O'Reilly says, on the Internet, "free" is eventually replaced by a higher quality paid service.
One music executive said: "I think there is a question of whether a publicly funded broadcaster should be doing this and there is the obvious issue that it is devaluing the perceived value of music. You are also leading the public to think that it is fine to download and own these files for nothing."
Another said: "We have to pay premium prices to record big orchestras and pay full union rates and we have to pass those costs on to the consumer. If the BBC is going to offer recordings for free, that is going to be a major problem."
Let's see now. I believe Beethovan died in 1827, which means even if his work was protected by copyright, that copyright would have expired by now. So nobody owns his music. It is in the public domain. So whilst there may indeed be a question about whether a public broadcaster should be providing access to wonderful music from the public domain, the answer is a fairly simple yes imho.
In response to the second music executive, I'm reminded of a quote from Robert Heinlein's Life-Line:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."
It's a tough time to be in the music business with the changes wrought by the evolution of digital technologies but we do have to maintain a sense of proportion. The classical labels provide a worthy service commissioning and selling recordings of classical music in the public domain, which would not otherwise be so widely available. Although the music is in the public domain it is reasonable that these companies should be able to make a profit for the service they provide.
The technology, however, now opens up the possibility of creating a comprehensive library of that music on the Internet. It would arguably be anti-competitive and unreasonable to block the creation of such a library to protect the profits of the current incumbents in the classical music market. There will still be a market for classical music. The technology does not threaten music production. It threatens existing music production companies, unless they adapt their businesses to the new environment. And in response to the oft quoted "you can't compete with free", anyone for bottled water? Or as Tim O'Reilly says, on the Internet, "free" is eventually replaced by a higher quality paid service.
Monday, July 11, 2005
EU judge removed from Microsoft case
A French judge has been removed from presiding over the Microsoft antitrust case after he supposedly "created an uproar" after writing an article for a French legal magazine criticising court clerks as "ayatollahs of free enterprise".
I doubt things were quite as simple as this article suggests.
I doubt things were quite as simple as this article suggests.
Quoting Feynman once, twice, thrice.
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
These are all quotes attributed to Richard Feynman and they all came to mind when thinking about data retention and ID card proposals.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
These are all quotes attributed to Richard Feynman and they all came to mind when thinking about data retention and ID card proposals.
London lives
One of the more thoughtful articles on the terrible bombings last week in London came from Mary Kaldor at OpenDemocracy.
"There is something perverse about globalisation. I live and work in the area of London targeted in the four explosions on Thursday 7 July. None of our phones worked for several hours and I couldn’t reach my family and close friends. Yet even before I quite realised what was happening, I was receiving emails from India, America, Azerbaijan, Kosovo and even Baghdad...
The latest tally of victims from the four bombings is more than 50 killed and 700 wounded. It is impossible to dignify this nihilistic crime by attributing political motives. It cannot be explained in terms of religion, ideology, or any rational motive, however perverted...
... the best reaction to this crime is to ignore it – to refuse to allow its perpetrators their moment of notoriety. Of course, it is important to strengthen protection of innocent people, and to track down the criminals and bring them before the courts. But the crime should not be allowed to derail everyday plans and projects."
"There is something perverse about globalisation. I live and work in the area of London targeted in the four explosions on Thursday 7 July. None of our phones worked for several hours and I couldn’t reach my family and close friends. Yet even before I quite realised what was happening, I was receiving emails from India, America, Azerbaijan, Kosovo and even Baghdad...
The latest tally of victims from the four bombings is more than 50 killed and 700 wounded. It is impossible to dignify this nihilistic crime by attributing political motives. It cannot be explained in terms of religion, ideology, or any rational motive, however perverted...
... the best reaction to this crime is to ignore it – to refuse to allow its perpetrators their moment of notoriety. Of course, it is important to strengthen protection of innocent people, and to track down the criminals and bring them before the courts. But the crime should not be allowed to derail everyday plans and projects."
If CCTV operators were licenced...
Spyblog speculates on whether the sifting through CCTV footage element of the investigation of the London bombings might have been helped if all CCTV operators had been licenced.
Copyright abuse
C.E. Petit has been rumminating on copyright abuse.
"Typically,1 copyright abuse falls into one of two categories:
The copyright holder who wants to squelch criticism and comment...
The copyright holder who wants to exploit a property for purposes other than copyright. One obvious example of this is Disney, with its repeated attempts to use copyright law and extend copyright law to protect that overgrown shirtless rat."
He's also been paraphrasing Winston Churchill:
"Intellectual property régimes are the worst means of encouraging progress in science and the useful arts… except for all the others."
"Typically,1 copyright abuse falls into one of two categories:
The copyright holder who wants to squelch criticism and comment...
The copyright holder who wants to exploit a property for purposes other than copyright. One obvious example of this is Disney, with its repeated attempts to use copyright law and extend copyright law to protect that overgrown shirtless rat."
He's also been paraphrasing Winston Churchill:
"Intellectual property régimes are the worst means of encouraging progress in science and the useful arts… except for all the others."
Irish ISPs look to bottom line
Irish ISPs have agreed not to fight music industry efforts to get the details of suspected file sharers. It's just business. Fighting legal battles on behalf of the privacy of customers doesn't provide a short term positive contribution to sharerholders' returns. It's simpler, at least in the short term, to come to an accommodation with the music companies and work out some process whereby the details can be requested and handed over. If the volume of requests becomes large, however, the ISPs might find themselves reviewing the administrative cost involved. One to watch I would think.
Clarke wants 3 year data retention
Whilst apparently resisting calls to rush through more anti-terrorism legislation in the wake of last weeks London bombs, Charles Clarke intends to push the emergency meeting of EU security ministers this week to adopt data retention plans which would force ISPs and communications companies to retain traffic data for three years. The UK government had been twisting arms originally to enforce a 7 year data retention regime across Europe but had compromised recently assuming they would only be able to get one year retention proposals through.
Somebody really needs to explain to these ministers in simple terms what the proposals would mean in practical terms. Huge expense for the industry, which would presumably want some kind of compensation from the state. Plus a vast increase in communications data noise. To find the needle gems in the data haystack you need to employ enough smart people with appropriately refined searching and targetting techniques and tools. You don't build a bigger barn and fill it with infinitely more hay. It might look impressive but your already over-stretched intelligence folks are now searching a much bigger haystack for the same number of needles.
Somebody really needs to explain to these ministers in simple terms what the proposals would mean in practical terms. Huge expense for the industry, which would presumably want some kind of compensation from the state. Plus a vast increase in communications data noise. To find the needle gems in the data haystack you need to employ enough smart people with appropriately refined searching and targetting techniques and tools. You don't build a bigger barn and fill it with infinitely more hay. It might look impressive but your already over-stretched intelligence folks are now searching a much bigger haystack for the same number of needles.
Canada sign hate protocol in cybercrime treaty
Canada have become the first non European country to sign up to the anti racism protocol in the Council of Europe's cybercrime treaty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)